ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Border Controls

William Bain: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK border controls during the summer of 2011.

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, before I respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I should like to apologise for the unexpected absence due to a family emergency of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is in Northumbria, representing the Government at a memorial service for PC David Rathband. I had the privilege of meeting PC Rathband, who was a brave and fine police officer. He is a huge loss to the police service and his local community and I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our condolences to his family.
	On border controls last summer, as the House is aware, I commissioned the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine, to conduct an independent investigation into the unauthorised suspension of border checks during that period. The Vine report revealed unauthorised suspensions of checks, poor communication and poor record-keeping since 2007. I have accepted all the report’s recommendations and we have appointed Chief Constable Brian Moore to lead a new border force as an operational command separate from UKBA.

William Bain: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that answer. Do not the Vine report’s devastating conclusions that border checks were downgraded more than 2,000 times last summer on the instructions of the Immigration Minister, without even the Home Secretary having been consulted first, and that fewer people were stopped at Heathrow airport and other ports last year compared with 2010 show that the tackling of illegal immigration became completely dysfunctional last summer under
	this Government? Will not the fight against that be further undermined by the cutting of 6,500 staff within the UK Border Agency?

Theresa May: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, and he put some things into his question that I challenge. First, the Immigration Minister did not instruct that certain checks should be suspended last summer. The hon. Gentleman tried to put quite a lot into his question in relation to the impact of border security checks on illegal immigration. I have to say that it would be a lot easier to take questions on immigration from the Labour party if it had not left this country’s immigration system in such a mess when it left government.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Home Secretary inform the House how many EU migrants have visited the United Kingdom since the summer of 2011 as a result of the economic difficulties in the eurozone? What contingencies has she put in place should there be a part or full collapse of the euro?

Theresa May: The latest figures for migration from various parts of the world that have been published are publicly available but they do not go up to the date that my hon. Friend has requested. We are aware of the issue of EU migration, which is why when we came into government we committed to ensuring that any future new member states entering the European Union would have transitional controls placed on them—something that the previous Labour Government failed to do for those early new entrants to the EU such as Poland.

Keith Vaz: Having effective border controls means preventing the wrong people from coming in and removing undesirable people from this country. The Home Secretary has just come back from Jordan, where she met the King. She was given cast-iron guarantees about the treatment of Abu Qatada were he to return to Jordan, so why is Mr Abu Qatada still in this country?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes certain claims for what happened when I was in Jordan. We had very positive and constructive discussions with a number of representatives of the Jordanian Government and I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting the King. Further work is being undertaken by the lawyers as we speak. As I have said before to hon. Members, my intention is to ensure that when we are able to deport Abu Qatada as we all want to be able to do, we are able to make that deportation sustainable.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is really shocking that we have had a relaxation of our border controls from 2007 onwards about which Parliament was never told? Will she confirm that since that came to light she has been taking action to reintroduce the concept of border security for our country?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that the Vine report indicated that there had been problems with border controls since 2007—a fact that, sadly, Members on the Opposition Front Bench seemed unable to recognise when the Vine report came out. We have, indeed, reinstated full border security checks—that
	is absolutely right and proper—and we have taken action to make sure that by separating the UK border force from UKBA it can concentrate on the issue of establishing and maintaining proper security at our borders.

Chris Bryant: I, too, convey apologies to the House, from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who is with the Policing Minister in Northumbria at the memorial service for PC Rathband. As the Home Secretary rightly said, he was a very brave police officer, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family, and his colleagues in the Northumbria police. It just goes to show that, for a police officer, harm’s way can come in many different guises.
	On 9 November last year, the Minister for Immigration said:
	“this pilot was a success”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 358.]
	As it was such a great success, will the Home Secretary repeat the pilot this year, and if not, why not?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because this was reported to Parliament when I made a statement on the chief inspector’s report on security checks, that the initial figures that we were given last year about the summer pilot did indeed show some success, in terms of the seizure of items such as drugs. However, when the chief inspector came to look at the whole issue, he discovered that there had been some other unauthorised relaxation of security checks, and that the recording had not been complete; it was therefore not possible to give a full evaluation of that pilot.

DNA Database

Chi Onwurah: What plans she has for the Forensic Science Service’s DNA database.

James Brokenshire: Since April 2007, the National Policing Improvement Agency, not the Forensic Science Service, has administered the national DNA database.

Chi Onwurah: In announcing the closure of the Forensic Science Service, the Minister for Immigration said:
	“A competitive market can help drive down prices and improve turnaround times”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 58WH.]
	Last month, a contaminated DNA sample led to the wrong person being charged with rape, and next month the manufacturing consumables DNA database will be destroyed because the private sector does not have the necessary research infrastructure. What will the Minister do to ensure that we maintain our world-beating forensic capability, both for research and criminal justice?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady referred to a specific case which she is no doubt aware the forensic science regulator is investigating. There is absolutely no indication that the case is linked in any way to the transition of services from the Forensic Science Service to commercial providers. She highlighted the need for certain electronic records to be maintained; as part of that transition,
	electronic records held by the FSS will transfer to the National Policing Improvement Agency by the end of this month. She asked about innovation; it is still very much part of the work that we are looking to forensics providers to do. That is why that is in the contract, and why we will follow through on recommendations.

Mr Speaker: We do need to speed up a bit. If the Minister could provide slightly shorter answers, that would be helpful to the House.

Philip Davies: In 1999, Michael Weir was convicted of the murder of Mr Harris. The only link to that crime was DNA found on a glove of Michael Weir’s. Michael Weir’s DNA was taken after he was arrested on a drugs-related charge that had been discontinued two years earlier; he had been discharged. Will the Minister confirm that under the Government’s new plans for DNA retention, Michael Weir’s DNA sample would no longer have been on the database, and Mr Harris’s murderer would never have been brought to justice?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has consistently argued for the indefinite retention of DNA profiles. We certainly recognise the importance of DNA in solving crimes. It is rarely possible to say that convictions could not have been obtained without DNA evidence, although of course the availability of DNA evidence can frequently help to focus an investigation. We have been clear on ensuring that those convicted of crimes remain on the DNA database indefinitely, and speculative searches are undertaken on each occasion.

Diana Johnson: May I press the Minister a little further on the high-profile rape case that collapsed due to sample cross-contamination at LGC Forensics? Also, a New Scientist survey shows that three quarters of forensic scientists expect that the coalition’s closure of the FSS will cause more miscarriages of justice. Will the Minister outline the steps that he is taking to ensure that the integrity of the criminal justice system is not undermined by a lack of confidence in the available forensic science services?

James Brokenshire: We have absolute confidence in the provision by forensic service providers, and I know that the hon. Lady accepts that private providers are well equipped and well able to offer services to police in future. On her specific question in respect of the individual case, I repeat that the forensic science regulator, Andrew Rennison, has launched an immediate investigation into the case. The initial investigation suggests that this is an isolated case. Although we will learn any lessons to be learned from the formal inquiry, there are no indications at this stage that it undermines the use of DNA or private providers providing services to the police.

Production Orders

Jonathan Edwards: What recent assessment she has made of the level of applications for production orders by police forces.

James Brokenshire: Production orders are a valuable tool for the police to use in the investigation of serious crime, but are issued only after careful scrutiny by a circuit judge. Information on the number of production
	orders made by individual police forces is not collated centrally. We have not, therefore, made any assessment of the level of applications.

Jonathan Edwards: The use of production orders by the police, such as in the case of Dale Farm, has the potential to increase risks for journalists as they are, in effect, seen as informers, as well as undermining journalistic independence. The National Union of Journalists is worried that the use of such orders is becoming more common. Will the Minister meet me, other concerned MPs and the NUJ to discuss the issue?

James Brokenshire: I understand that the National Union of Journalists has mounted an appeal in the courts against the granting of a number of orders, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is difficult for me to comment on the specifics. Our understanding is that only a small minority of production orders are used to obtain journalistic material. The vast majority are made in relation to financial information. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will look into the specifics that he highlighted.

Gang-related Crime

Angie Bray: What steps she is taking to tackle gang-related crime.

John Baron: What steps she is taking to tackle gang-related crime.

Damian Green: The Government report on ending gang and youth violence published last November sets out a long-term, evidence-based programme to tackle gang and youth violence. The approach combines the early identification of children and young people most at risk of being drawn into gangs, providing ways out for those wanting to leave a gang, and tough enforcement against those who continue with a violent lifestyle.

Angie Bray: My hon. Friend will be aware that Ealing has been identified as one of the 30 top hot spots for gang problems. Our local borough serious youth violence team is already hard at work. Can the Minister update the House on what more the Government are doing to tackle knife crime, especially among young people?

Damian Green: The Government’s position is clear. Any adult who commits a crime using a knife can expect to be sent to prison, and serious offenders can expect a long sentence. The Home Office has committed £18 million of funding for 2011-13 to support the police, local agencies and the voluntary sector to tackle knife, gun and gang-related crime. As my hon. Friend says, Ealing has been identified as one of the 30 most affected areas. That is why it is one of the areas selected to receive additional support. It has been allocated more than £230,000 in provisional support, and I know that that money will be well spent.

John Baron: Gang-related crime is a major plague in many of our communities. Government measures so far are welcome, but what more can the Government do to
	combat the problem, particularly when it comes to reducing the number of vulnerable people drawn to gangs?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. It is clearly not just about attacking the offences and identifying the offenders—it is trying to stop them offending and joining gangs in the first place. That is why support for parents and families is at the heart of this programme. We have established an ending gang and youth violence team led by a detective chief superintendent from the Metropolitan police. The team will have access to advisers from a range of backgrounds, including community activists, local authority specialists and voluntary organisations, so that we can get to the roots of the problem as soon as it starts, long before the children join a gang.

Alun Michael: Does the Minister accept that among those who are most vulnerable to being drawn into gang activity, as well as being radicalised in various ways, are those who have spent a short period in custody? Will the Minister focus on making sure that those who come out of short periods of custody are targeted effectively so that they are not drawn into such activity?

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is precisely why we are not just treating this as a purely policing matter, but drawing in local authorities, voluntary organisations and other specialists, so that that kind of positive intervention to keep people on the right track and off the wrong track can be part of our overall strategy.

Meg Hillier: Will the Minister update the House on the progress and uptake of gang injunctions and, in the light of that update, advise us on whether the Home Office is reconsidering its plan to abolish antisocial behaviour orders, which also have a role to play in tackling gang culture?

Damian Green: I think that the hon. Lady will recognise that ASBOs felt like a good idea at the time but did not work and straightforwardly failed. Far too many ASBOs were breached, and increasing numbers of them were breached the longer time went on. I am sure that the policy was devised with the best intentions, but it did not work, which is why we have moved on to other policies that will be more effective in combating antisocial behaviour and gang-related violence.

Crime Levels

Ian Lavery: What assessment she has made of the level of crime since May 2010.

James Brokenshire: As the Home Secretary told the House last month, crime remains too high. That is why we are reforming the police so that they are free from unnecessary paperwork and free to fight crime. The national crime mapping website, police.uk, now provides the public with street-level information
	about crime and antisocial behaviour on a monthly basis, allowing them to obtain crime and policing information in a more accessible way.

Ian Lavery: My constituents are extremely concerned about the increase in crime, as outlined in the British crime survey, which shows an 11% increase in crimes against the person, including theft, robbery and violence against the person. When will the Home Secretary prioritise cuts against the cuts in police numbers?

James Brokenshire: I think I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. When we look at police forces such as his, Northumbria police, we see that they have taken some really important steps to make savings and efficiencies while cutting crime at the same time. Rather than criticising the efforts of police forces such as Northumbria, which has seen a 15% fall in violence against the person, we should be supporting the steps they are taking to find efficiencies and dealing with the problems left by the previous Government.

Nigel Mills: I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to join me in congratulating Derbyshire police, as crime in Derbyshire continues to fall, detection levels are at a record high, my constituents’ satisfaction with the police has gone up each year and they are meeting their savings targets.

James Brokenshire: I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend on working closely with his local police force. As he has highlighted, the important thing is how police officers are used. Better deployment, better shift patterns, reduced bureaucracy and increased scope for officers to use their professional judgment are steps that many forces are taking and that this Government support.

David Winnick: As far as crime is concerned, does the Minister’s boss, the Home Secretary, accept that policing, particularly on the front line, should be done by the police? The suggestion that private security firms should undertake some of those responsibilities for West Midlands and Surrey police forces is simply unacceptable: policing should remain the responsibility of the police.

James Brokenshire: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman appears to criticise the role of the private sector and looking at ways of providing innovative services, because I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), applauded and welcomed that type of innovation when in government. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that where warranted officers are needed for those services, that is absolutely what will happen. Surrey and West Midlands police forces are engaged in looking at innovation in back-office services.

Rob Wilson: Despite the Opposition’s scaremongering, visible front-line policing in the Thames Valley has risen by more than 11% in the past two years, while recorded crime has fallen by 11%. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chief Constable Sara Thornton and her team on demonstrating that it is possible to reduce crime while cutting bureaucracy and cutting budgets?

James Brokenshire: I certainly do congratulate Chief Constable Sara Thornton. Thames Valley has increased its visible policing, patrol and neighbourhood officer public reassurance, and that is an example of how efficiencies and a more focused approach can be provided while cutting crime.

Police Forces (Collaboration)

Stephen Hammond: What assessment she has made of the potential benefits of collaboration between police forces.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What assessment she has made of the potential benefits of collaboration between police forces.

Theresa May: I welcome the increasing levels of collaboration between police forces and expect more forces to consider how to work together to make improvements and to save money. The Government have estimated that forces could save £350 million per year by collaboration on procurement and from IT. Further substantial savings could be made through collaboration in back-office functions.

Stephen Hammond: In 2009 the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said that he was "relaxed" about the collaboration of police forces with the private sector. Is the Home Secretary similarly relaxed?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and indeed I am similarly relaxed. In 2009 the current shadow Policing Minister said that he was not only very “relaxed” about collaboration between police forces and the private sector, but that police forces had Labour’s “blessing” to do it.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration between police forces, and indeed between police forces and other bodies, to get much-needed efficiencies is welcome at any time but is now essential in these challenging times, as we try to protect front-line police services and clear up the financial mess left by the Labour party?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is of course right that at all times police forces look at what efficiencies they can make, and at what collaboration they can enter into, to ensure that they are able to increase and improve the service that they provide to the public, but while forces are having to make budget cuts because of the deficit that was left by the Labour Government, that is even more important.

Bob Ainsworth: Can the Home Secretary tell us why the collaboration between West Midlands police and Surrey police on the long-term privatisation of large parts of the police service, including some core functions, is going ahead before the election of police and crime commissioners? Surely she sees that that undermines, potentially, the commissioner’s role in setting the strategic direction of the police force.

Theresa May: Police forces throughout the country are rightly looking at collaboration, but there are different ways in which they can do so. West Midlands and Surrey police forces are looking at innovative ways in which they can bring in the private sector to ensure that they are able to make the savings that need to be made
	while delivering the service that the public expect them to deliver. It is important that police forces have been looking at the matter for the past two years, and in advance of the election of police and crime commissioners, because frankly we could not wait to start the job of clearing up the mess that was left by the previous Government in terms of the deficit.

Stephen McCabe: Given that some of the collaboration initiatives could have a significant influence on the level of the police precept, who will have the final say on the initiative: the commissioner or the police and crime panels?

Theresa May: It is of course for the police and crime commissioner to set the budget and the strategic plan for any police force. We have put in place the opportunity for police and crime panels to question and challenge decisions made by the commissioner, but of course it is the commissioner who sets the precept.

Tom Brake: Will the Home Secretary use this opportunity to confirm that collaboration should not extend to privatising 999 response teams, patrols or arrests?

Theresa May: I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that only police officers have the power of arrest. They will continue to patrol the streets, to respond to 999 calls, and to lead investigations. The public expect the police to be experts in catching criminals, and that is what we want them to be. We do not want them to be experts in human resources or IT, which are entirely the sorts of areas that can involve collaboration with the private sector.

Bill Esterson: Of course, collaboration and sharing of good practice has been going on for very many years, including in national resilience. Would the Home Secretary not do better to put in place the collaboration arrangements that she talks about so fondly before making cuts of 16,000 in front-line policing?

Theresa May: Police forces up and down the country are doing what is necessary to make the savings that we are asking them to make. They are transforming the way in which they provide policing and rightly looking to ensure that the private sector can be brought in where that will increase efficiency and save money. A Labour Government would have cut police spending and reduced police budgets. Nobody on the Labour Front Bench has said that they would intend to reverse the cuts in police spending. It is about time that the Opposition stopped opposing every opportunity that we are giving the police to ensure that they can save money from back offices and get the police out on the streets.

Immigration

Karen Lumley: What steps she is taking to ensure that people applying to settle in the UK can contribute to the economy.

Damian Green: On 29 February, we announced changes that will break the link between coming here to work and settling permanently
	and ensure that only those who make a significant economic contribution can stay. In future, most skilled workers will need to be paid a minimum salary of £35,000 to settle here.

Karen Lumley: I welcome the Minister’s comments. I am glad that settlement will no longer be an automatic consequence of long-term residence, but can he assure my constituents that that will be properly enforced?

Damian Green: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support, and I can give her that assurance. The new measures will be no different in this regard from any other immigration route. She and the House may be aware that we have now reached 11,000 arrests of criminals, including murderers, rapists and illegal immigrants, as a result of the processing of advance passenger information through e-borders. In 2011, in a clampdown on sham marriages, we carried out over 300 enforcement operations and prosecuted almost 230 people. That is the kind of tough enforcement that we need, and now have, to back up our immigration system.

Fiona Mactaggart: Overseas domestic workers make a significant contribution to Britain’s economy, directly and indirectly, by allowing their employers to contribute to the economy. The changes to their visa that the Minister has announced put a large number of overseas domestic workers at risk of being trafficked, as we know from history. Would he be willing to meet me and representatives of Justice for Domestic Workers so that he can hear first hand about the impact that his proposed changes will have on overseas domestic workers?

Damian Green: I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis of what we are doing. We are returning this route to its original purpose—to enable visitors from overseas to bring their domestic workers with them to the UK. Domestic workers will be able to come to the country for short periods with their existing employer, but should also leave with that employer. Individuals living in the UK should recruit domestic help from within the resident labour force. There is no justification for allowing low-skilled jobs to be filled from outside the European economic area. It is wrong to assert that a right to settle and bring a family to the UK is the most appropriate form of protection from abuse. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady and the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, have simply got this wrong.

Julian Huppert: Does the Minister recognise the concern expressed by academics, universities and high-tech companies that this aspect of immigration policy and the rhetoric surrounding it is making it harder to attract and keep the best and brightest, who contribute so much to our society and economy? What assurances can he give to employers and their prospective employees that Britain will be open for the best and brightest?

Damian Green: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance of the facts. We have made changes to tier 1 —the top end of the immigration system—to encourage investors and entrepreneurs to come to the UK. We have created a special new route for the exceptionally
	talented in the arts and sciences. At the same time as reducing immigration numbers, we are making a more selective system that will show that Britain is open for business and that the brightest and the best can make a great future in this country.

Assaults on Journalists

Kelvin Hopkins: What recent assessment she has made of the level of physical assaults against journalists covering news stories.

Damian Green: Information on physical assaults against journalists covering news stories is not available from the police recorded crime statistics held by the Home Office. Journalists have the right to do their job in a safe environment and, like all members of the public, are protected by the law. If they are assaulted, the crime will be investigated and dealt with by the police.

Kelvin Hopkins: National Union of Journalists members are placed at risk when their material or sources are used by police forces through production orders. Does the Minister accept that journalists are independent news gatherers, not evidence gatherers for law enforcement, and that forcing them to hand over their journalistic material or sources places them at risk of attack? Will he agree to meet me and other members of the NUJ parliamentary group to discuss those matters?

Damian Green: As a former journalist and, indeed, a former member of the NUJ, I have every sympathy with journalists whose lives are put in danger. [ Interruption. ] The shadow Immigration Minister should not dwell on the fact that his Government organised for me to be arrested, because it was not their finest hour. I suggest that he withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He is many things, but not, to my knowledge, a journalist. I am sure that he has concluded his answer.

Hate Crime

Stephen Lloyd: What steps she is taking to tackle hate crime.

Damian Green: Last Wednesday, the Minister for Equalities launched “Challenge it, report it, stop it”, the Government’s new action plan for tackling hate crime. It sets out what we will do at the national level to help victims and professionals to challenge the attitudes that drive hate crime; give more victims the confidence to come forward; and make sure that the criminal justice system responds effectively when they do.

Stephen Lloyd: I am very concerned by recent reports that indicate that there has been a rise in abuse towards disabled people. Will the Minister confirm what the facts are behind the anecdotes, and what specific actions the Government are taking to address any rise in hate crimes towards disabled people?

Damian Green: I regret to say that my hon. Friend is correct. At a time when the reporting of other kinds of hate crime has declined, the latest figures, which are for 2010, show that the number of hate crimes against disabled people went up from 1,294 to 1,569. He is therefore addressing the right problem. It is the “report it” part of the action plan that I would point to, because more disabled people are reporting hate crimes to the police. We know that under-reporting is a huge problem, and one of the key themes of the action plan is to encourage more victims to come forward. We are doing that by allowing new ways of reporting such crimes, such as online and through third parties.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and to the Government for their attention to hate crime. He will be aware that learning-disabled people are often particularly reluctant to report such crimes because they feel that they will not be believed. What steps are the Government taking to encourage all professionals to take all accusations of hate crime from such victims seriously?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That is why, as part of the action plan that the Minister for Equalities announced recently, the Home Office is funding organisations that support the victims of disability hate crime to find a way to make it easier for those who are particularly reluctant to report it to come forward.

Metal Theft

Jake Berry: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

Nick de Bois: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

Caroline Nokes: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

Andrew Bingham: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

Fiona Bruce: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

James Brokenshire: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a statement to the House in January, we are taking legislative action to tackle metal theft, including raising the financial penalties for rogue dealers, banning cash payments for scrap metal and giving the police powers to enter unregistered scrap yards. That is part of a coherent package of measures, which includes enhanced enforcement through the funding of a £5 million national metal theft taskforce.

Jake Berry: Rossendale and Darwen has been subjected to a spate of metal thefts, including from the mills and, on Thursday night, from a school in Lower Darwen. Will the Minister inform the House how quickly the cashless payment system will be introduced to stop this metallic crime wave?

James Brokenshire: I certainly recognise the impact that these crimes are having in communities up and down the country, and my hon. Friend highlights the problems in Rossendale and Darwen. Our amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill prohibiting cash payments will be debated in the Lords on Report tomorrow, and will come before this House in due course. The exact enactment date is subject to the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, but we anticipate enactment later this year.

Nick de Bois: Forty Hall in my constituency is a 17th-century Jacobean mansion that is undergoing a £3 million refurbishment. There have been three thefts in the past year, including with violence against security guards. Speed of implementation is one thing, but will the Minister assure me that there will be speed of enforcement against criminals?

James Brokenshire: I accept absolutely my hon. Friend’s point about the need for strong enforcement, and I am sorry to hear of the problems experienced at Forty Hall in his constituency. A report was published today about threats to heritage sites. We have put forward £5 million for enforcement, which is already bearing fruit, with enforcement action taking place. For example, in the north-east more than 300 police officers and law enforcement personnel have visited scrap metal yards, £900,000 in cash has been seized, and a further operation—

Mr Speaker: Order. That is very informative, but I say to the Minister that it would be helpful if we could make some progress. Reading out great screeds just slows things down. It is quite straightforward, really.

Caroline Nokes: Last month, a bronze eagle statue was stolen from the memorial garden at the museum of Army flying in Middle Wallop in my constituency. The statue was placed there to commemorate brave Army aviators who had served their country. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Ministry of Justice about sentencing guidelines for those who desecrate memorials to our servicemen and women?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend highlights the significant community impact that metal thefts and desecrations of war memorials and other historical sites have had, and the often irrevocable harm that can be caused. The Bill is being considered in the other place as we speak, and the sanctions in it can lead to an unlimited fine. We will look to follow that through with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

Andrew Bingham: We in High Peak have also been victims of metal theft. Last November a popular tourist attraction, the Eccles Pike topograph, was removed from near Chapel-en-le-Frith. I am pleased to say that scrap yards in my constituency were given a clean bill of health during a multi-agency operation last year. Does the Minister agree that tackling metal theft by preventing cash for scrap without questions is the best way, and will be welcomed by the honest scrap metal merchants in my constituency?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the cashless approach is essential in driving out this crime, and I underline the point that he has very effectively made.

Fiona Bruce: Almost every Church of England church in my constituency has suffered metal theft. Will the Minister assure me that penalties for those found guilty of acts of metal theft will appropriately reflect the huge costs to local churches in seeking to repair damage, which far outweigh the scrap value of what is stolen?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the impact of metal theft. The new provisions include an unlimited fine, and we will look closely at their impact as they come through.

Graham Jones: Does the Minister not recognise that the public may be shocked that a cashless scheme might not be cashless under the Home Secretary’s proposals, which exclude mobile collectors? If they are exempt, that will create a huge loophole in the system. Does he not accept that resident householders have access to local recycling centres, local authority curb-side collection and retail take-back and swap, and the option of going to a reputable dealer? Is the exemption not a giant loophole and an own goal?

James Brokenshire: The short answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions.

David Hanson: I am afraid that that answer is not really good enough. On what basis has the Minister determined that an exemption from cashless payments should be made for itinerant collectors of scrap metal? Will that not drive a Steptoe and Son-sized coach and horses through the rules, and will not people such as his hon. Friends whose communities have lost metal in war memorials, gates and rails be appalled by the existence of that loophole?

James Brokenshire: I would never cast the shadow policing Minister in the role of Del Boy, but I would say to him that the provisions we have brought forward will ensure that those involved in door-to-door selling must trade through a registered scrap metal dealership. They will therefore be subject to the restrictions on cashless payment. That underlines the fact that those itinerant collectors need to be registered and approved by local authorities and police—another form or enforcement that needs to be focused on.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We have been somewhat delayed by the length of ministerial replies, but I am interested in hearing Back Benchers, so we will now hear Mr Gordon Henderson.

Antisocial Behaviour

Gordon Henderson: What discussions she has had with police officers on the powers they need to deal with repeated antisocial behaviour in residential areas.

Theresa May: We have had extensive discussions with the police and other front-line professionals on our proposals for simpler and more effective powers. Many
	recognise the need to improve the services to victims of persistent antisocial behaviour and we will work with a number of forces and their partners to trial our proposed community trigger this year.

Gordon Henderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. What are the Government doing to speed up the lengthy bureaucratic process they inherited so that local communities can combat antisocial behaviour faster and more effectively?

Theresa May: We consulted on replacing 18 of the existing powers with six new ones, but I am concerned about stories of victims reporting problems and not getting any action. Community trigger will give people the opportunity to ensure that action is taken by the police or other agencies, and we will work with a number of leading local areas, including Manchester and West Lindsey, to pilot the trigger this year, offering a better service to victims and communities.

Gloria De Piero: The antisocial behaviour injunction is a tool used by social landlords to clamp down on nuisance tenants. Those landlords have obtained legal advice that if the Government replace that tool, the likelihood is that they will be left, to quote from the legal judgment, “literally powerless” to act, possibly for years. Will Ministers therefore keep the injunction?

Theresa May: I am very well aware that injunctions are often used effectively by social landlords to deal quickly with ASB. We want to build on their success in our new proposals so that they can be available to other organisations. We recognise the vital role that landlords play in tackling antisocial behaviour and are committed to strengthening their ability to deal with it.

Domestic Violence

Paul Maynard: What steps she is taking to reduce levels of domestic violence.

Theresa May: The Government’s updated action plan for our strategy to end violence against women and girls was published on 8 March. We have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services until 2015. The plan also includes new actions to help to reduce domestic violence, including a one-year pilot to test a domestic violence disclosure scheme from the summer of 2012.

Paul Maynard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. On a recent visit to the Awaken team in Blackpool, I was told that there is a clear correlation between domestic violence against young girls in the home and future exposure to child sexual exploitation. As the Home Secretary builds her policy, will she bear in mind the importance of that correlation and ensure that she works on that with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has responsibility for children?

Theresa May: The Department for Education and the Under-Secretary specifically are represented on the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I chair. I welcome the excellent work being done by the Awaken project in Blackpool. We support multi-agency approaches to tackling child sexual exploitation. Indeed, the child sexual exploitation action plan includes measures to ensure that the local safeguarding children boards lead on tackling child sexual exploitation locally with a variety of partners.

Stella Creasy: A study by Women’s Aid has shown that 230 women fleeing violence and seeking refuge were turned away from refuges in this country on a typical day last year owing to the lack of space. Does the Home Secretary agree that turning any woman away from a refuge is unacceptable, and will she give an assurance to the House that no woman seeking refuge from domestic violence will be turned away on her watch? Yes or no?

Theresa May: Of course we all want to ensure that women who find themselves having to flee from domestic violence are given the support that they need. It is not the case, however, that no woman was turned away from refuges in the past. However, we are taking a slightly different attitude to this issue in the domestic violence protection orders. One thing that has always concerned me is that the victim of domestic violence—all too often a woman—is often forced to leave the home while the perpetrator is able to stay in the home. The point of the domestic violence protection order is to ensure that more women suffering from domestic violence can remain in their own homes.

Topical Questions

Grahame Morris: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: Last Thursday, I made a written statement announcing the publication of the final report of Tom Winsor’s independent review of police pay and conditions. We are determined to implement reforms that will help police forces to fight crime. That includes maximising officer and staff deployment to the front line, incentivising crime fighting not form-filling, and helping to open up police leadership to the most talented, whatever their background. With those aims in mind, I am now carefully considering Winsor’s detailed and wide-ranging recommendations, and will announce the Government’s response in due course.

Grahame Morris: This weekend there have been reports of heavy-handed police tactics, including the deployment of armed officers and the use of kettling against protestors engaged in a peaceful protest against the Health and Social Care Bill outside the Department of Health. Given that this evening there will be 25 or more peaceful vigils and protests across the country, including six in the north-east, has the Home Secretary asked the police to exercise restraint in the policing of these peaceful protests and demonstrations?

Theresa May: How peaceful demonstrations and protests are policed is an operational matter for the force at the time. We are absolutely clear that people should have the right to protest peacefully, but it is also clear that on separate sorts of issues, such as those we have seen elsewhere in relation to people invading territory or violence around demonstrations, the police should police that appropriately as well. However, I am pleased to say that the case on kettling in the European Court was won last week, so that remains available to the police.

Esther McVey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Merseyside police on ending the freeze on police constable recruitment introduced under the last Labour Government and on now recruiting more constables as it shifts more money into the fight against crime?

Theresa May: Of course I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about what Merseyside police are doing. It is a very good example of how it is possible for police forces to make savings while improving the service to the public.

Robert Flello: There is real concern across the country that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will lead to a patchy, postcode lottery in victims’ support services. Will the Secretary of State support ring-fencing the vital resources devolved to commissioners?

Theresa May: We are ensuring that there is a local voice in the services available to victims and in local policing. It is right that police and crime commissioners will, in due course, be able to commission victims’ services, thus reflecting what is necessary in the local area.

Priti Patel: Home Office figures show that between April 2010 and March 2011, more than 150 foreign nationals, previously held in immigration centres but then released into the community, went on to reoffend. What is the Minister doing to deport these individuals?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend puts her finger on an important issue, and I am happy to tell her that last year we removed more than 4,500 foreign national offenders, many of whom had perpetrated crimes. We believe that when a foreign criminal poses a risk to the public, they should stay in detention, and we always vigorously oppose bail, but the UK Border Agency has to act within the law. However, foreign criminals in the community awaiting deportation will be subject to stringent reporting restrictions, and every effort is always made to remove them from the country as soon as possible.

David Hanson: Why has the Home Secretary ruled out a free-post leaflet or candidate booklet for police and crime commissioner elections? Will she now heed the serious concerns raised by the Electoral Commission that internet-only access to candidate materials will disadvantage the poor, the old and those in rural areas, and, accordingly, help to address the poor turnout, or is that the intention?

Theresa May: We of course looked very carefully at the arrangements that we would put in place for making information available to voters in the police and crime commissioner elections. Instead of providing a free-post booklet to every household, what we are talking about is providing internet access. However, that does not mean that there will not necessarily be literature going out, because individual candidates will have expenses with which they will be able to make literature available; and indeed, it will be possible, from the internet access, to ask for written copies of the information that is available on the website.

Damian Collins: Will the Home Secretary consider producing a wide-ranging study of the effectiveness of community sports programmes run by organisations such as the Active Communities Network in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, particularly among young people?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important role that sports activities can play in ensuring that young people are not drawn into, for example, gang activity. I was pleased to talk personally to the Premier League about its Kickz project, which is an extremely effective programme that I would commend to others.

Jim Cunningham: Given that the Home Secretary blames everybody but herself for the deterioration in policing in the west midlands, will she tell us how privatisation of certain parts of the police service will improve it, or who she is going to blame next?

Theresa May: The police service will remain a public service. The activities that require warranted officers will still be undertaken by warranted officers. However, I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government who took some responsibilities away from warranted officers—such as detention, custody and escort jobs—so that the private sector could undertake them was not this Government, but his: the last, Labour Government.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the Home Secretary congratulate Kent police, which has increased the number of front-line police officers, has 520 more neighbourhood police officers on the beat, has been cutting crime and doing a great job, and has written to me complaining bitterly about this nonsense about a reduction in first-line responders?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to commend the work of Kent police. By transforming the way it undertakes policing and by looking at issues such as shift patterns, Kent police has been able to increase neighbourhood police officers by 520, which shows that money can be saved while maintaining or improving front-line services.

Tony Lloyd: While the Home Secretary is congratulating Kent police, will she commiserate with the people of Greater Manchester, who, according to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, will see the biggest cut in the number of front-line police officers? In particular, will she explain why, other than the Metropolitan
	police, Greater Manchester police will see more officers disappear than any other police force in the land, despite the fact that it covers what is still a relatively high-crime area?

Theresa May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the recent comment made by the chief constable of Greater Manchester. Referring to the police authority’s decision on the council tax grant, he thanked the authority for
	“agreeing the budget which will allow us to start recruiting again and to continue to reduce crime and disorder.”

Menzies Campbell: In the light of the discussions last week—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he deserves to be heard in an atmosphere of quietude.

Menzies Campbell: In the light of the discussions last week between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States about extradition, is the Home Secretary now in a position to tell the House when she expects to respond to the Baker report?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As he will have seen from the Prime Minister’s comments following his discussions with the President, discussions are taking place between this Government and the American Government about the extradition treaty, and I will report shortly.

Steve Rotheram: The number of passengers arriving at Liverpool John Lennon airport, which is Britain’s fastest growing airport, rose from 294,000 in quarter 1 of 2010 to 713,000 in quarter 3 of 2011. The vast increase coincided with the Home Secretary’s decision to open the doors of Britain without proper checks last summer. What guarantees can she give to the people of Liverpool that all 713,000 of those passengers had their passports checked?

Damian Green: I am glad that the local economy around John Lennon airport is flourishing and that more people are now using it. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that, for the first time, full checks are now being operated at the border. As John Vine’s report showed, that had not been happening since 2007.

Amber Rudd: Victims of domestic violence seeking residential support in a refuge currently fall into the Government’s exception category and have their housing benefit paid directly to the refuge. That is important for the victims, and important for securing finance for the refuges. May I urge the Home Secretary to have discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that that arrangement can continue under universal credit?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I can assure her that we are already discussing matters relating to benefits and the victims of domestic violence with the DWP, and we will continue to do so.

David Lammy: The Home Secretary will recall that, following the riots last summer, there was widespread concern about the absence of policing, the police being outfoxed by technology, particularly BlackBerry Messenger, and an absence of intelligence. Following the Kirkin report, what will change, this summer and next?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising an important point about the policing of the riots last summer. Following the riots, I brought together representatives of the Metropolitan police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, BlackBerry, Twitter and Facebook to look at the use of social media and social networks during the riots. Further discussions are taking place between ACPO, the individual forces and those organisations to ensure that the police are in a better position to deal with the wealth of information that becomes available on those social networks.

Andrew Selous: Is the Home Secretary aware that there has been a reduction in reported crime in Bedfordshire, in spite of the budget cuts forced on it by the financial mess left by the last Government, and that there has also been no reduction at all in the number of front-line responders?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point about Bedfordshire police. I commend them for the work they are doing. He has highlighted that it is possible to make savings in police budgets while ensuring that the front-line service is maintained and, in some cases, improved.

Paul Goggins: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about Abu Qatada, we are now halfway through the three-month period set by Mr Justice Mitting for an agreement to be reached with Jordan. Does the Home Secretary expect to have met the deadline by the time we next meet for Home Office questions, or will Abu Qatada’s bail conditions have been revoked?

Theresa May: My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as my reply to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There have been two ministerial visits to Jordan; the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) has made one, and I have also done so. Home Office officials have been there separately as well. We are having positive, constructive discussions with the Government of Jordan about Abu Qatada, but while those discussions are continuing and while there are still legal issues to look into, I will go no further than that.

Graham Evans: Will my right hon. Friend welcome Cheshire constabulary’s radical approach to delivering support through a multi-purpose business service centre, which will go live in April? It will meet the needs of the Cheshire and Northamptonshire police forces, and it is being delivered with the support of private sector partners.

Theresa May: I am very happy to support the initiative being taken by Cheshire and Northamptonshire police. This is an excellent example of innovative thinking and of creating collaboration between the private sector
	and police forces to ensure that better services are available, and that the police are better able to cut crime, which is what the public want them to do.

Wayne David: Does the Home Secretary agree that modern, strategically located police stations are an effective and essential part of modern policing?

Theresa May: What is important at grass-roots level is that the police make decisions about what makes sense to make themselves accessible to the public. In some cases, that will mean closing long-standing separate police station buildings and locating the police in alternative provision, perhaps in town centres.

Mr Speaker: Last but never least, Mr Philip Hollobone.

Philip Hollobone: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Major serious and organised crime knows no geographical boundaries, so will my right hon. Friend congratulate the five east midlands police forces on coming together and collaborating in order to tackle this menace more effectively and to save the taxpayer £26 million over the next four years?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those five east midlands police forces—I have visited them and spoken to them about this—are doing excellent collaborative work, not only on the tasks that they can undertake to reduce costs, but on improving their ability to fight crime.

Health and Social Care Bill

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No.  24 )

Andy Burnham: I seek leave to propose that the House should discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration—namely, whether the House of Commons should defer consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill until after the disclosure of the transition risk register. The other place is debating this issue imminently, and my colleagues and I thought it important for this House to have the opportunity to debate the matter, too. In just 24 hours’ time, this House will be asked to agree far-reaching changes to the NHS in England, drawn up, in large part, in the other place. As of now, however, Members find themselves in the highly unsatisfactory position of not being in possession of all relevant information needed to make a full and considered judgment on whether those changes should be allowed to proceed.
	Reorganising the NHS at this time of financial stress might expose it to greater risk and to establish the precise nature and scale of those risks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for its transition risk register on this reorganisation. Along with colleagues on the Opposition Benches, we have consistently argued that this information be published to inform the public and parliamentary debate.
	That is not just my opinion; it is the considered opinion of the Information Commissioner, who has had the benefit of viewing the transition risk register. He ruled that
	“disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published.”
	The commissioner’s ruling has, in turn, now been endorsed by the Information Rights Tribunal. Indeed, the tribunal was brought forward presumably so that its deliberations could be concluded in time for its decision to influence the debate in Parliament. Ten days on, we have had no substantial response from the Government to this ruling, save to say that they await the tribunal’s detailed reasons. We note that the Government’s ability to appeal is limited to a point of law, not to re-open the merits of the case.
	This is not a matter of the rights and wrongs of the Bill. It concerns the fundamental principle of the primacy of the elected House of Commons and its opportunity for scrutiny. Parliament has a right to know before it is asked to make a final judgment that will have huge implications for every person in our country. Many people would feel it wrong if the Government were to use procedural devices to prevent the House from seeing the transition risk register before the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament.
	This is the last opportunity for this House to urge the Government to publish the register. If this House allows this situation to go unchallenged or even to pass without comment, it would represent a major weakening of the role of this House in scrutinising the legislation before
	us. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make this request and I hope you will look favourably on it.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely whether the House should defer consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill until after disclosure of the NHS transition risk register. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s application, and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I thus put the application to the House.
	Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).

Mr Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House is becoming too excitable. Let me say to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) that he is a very senior citizen in the House, and that I look to him for a display of statesmanship. I appear to have looked in vain.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 20 March, as the first item of public business. It will last for one and a half hours, and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the application by the right hon. Gentleman.

Steve Rotheram: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, last Thursday, a document—Cabinet papers from 1989 on the Hillsborough disaster—was leaked to the BBC. Many believe that the leak could only have come from a senior politician or a senior civil servant, or that the BBC itself must have had access to this sensitive documentation. There have also been suggestions that there may well be further leaks on a “drip, drip” basis, which will undermine the work of the Hillsborough independent panel. Given the urgency—

Mr Speaker: Order. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman. What I am seeking to establish is: what is the point of order for the Chair? That is the question.

Steve Rotheram: Given the urgency of the situation, Mr Speaker, perhaps you can offer me guidance on the most appropriate parliamentary mechanism to ensure that as many Members as possible have the opportunity, and sufficient time, to debate the intricacies of such a complex issue.

Mr Speaker: There are a number of answers to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, I do not give procedural advice to Members from the Chair. Secondly—as one wag has just observed from a sedentary position—it is open to the hon. Gentleman to consult the Standing Orders, and he could probably do so to his advantage. Thirdly, my genuine and constructive advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should consult the Table Office about the variety of parliamentary devices that could be available to him, and could enable him further and better to pursue the matter.

George Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the serious allegations that were made in the revelations referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), should a Minister not come to the House and explain that those allegations against the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough are themselves scandalous?

Mr Speaker: I understand the very great strength of feeling on this matter, but I have ruled on the point of order. I respect the seniority and service of the right hon. Gentleman.

Theresa May: rose—

Mr Speaker: If the Home Secretary wishes to oblige, that is exceptionally obliging of her.

Theresa May: I do not intend to respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), but I think it would benefit the House if I made it clear that a leak inquiry has been initiated by the Cabinet Office. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) in his point of order about the impact that a leak of this sort will have on what is a very sensitive matter in the context of ensuring that the full information is put together by the Hillsborough panel, and I believe that the information in any documents should be shown to the families first and should not be leaked to the press in any form. I repeat that the Cabinet Office is undertaking a leak inquiry.

Mr Speaker: That was both helpful and courteous of the Home Secretary, and the House is immensely grateful to her.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 6 February, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 290, Noes 200.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Employment Tribunals

That the draft Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 6 February, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 293, Noes 202.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question proposed (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order of 13 March),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £50 million in respect of a grant to the Business Angel Co-investment Fund, funded by the Regional Growth Fund.—(Angela  Watkinson .)
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financial Services: Prudential Requirements

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13284/11 and Addenda 1 to 4, relating to a draft Regulation on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, No. 13285/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a draft Directive on the access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Directive 2002/87/EC on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate, and No. 5876/12, relating to an opinion of the European Central Bank on a proposal for a Directive on the access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms and a proposal for a Regulation on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms; supports the Government’s view that to protect financial stability, avoid unnecessary international arbitrage and reinforce market confidence in EU banks it is crucial that the EU builds upon the G20 commitment to fully and faithfully implement the Basel 3 agreement and provides Member States with the flexibility to respond in a timely manner to systemic risks in their jurisdiction or to mitigate fiscal risk; and supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reform the UK financial sector and system of financial regulation in order to protect UK taxpayers’ exposure to future losses.—(Angela  Watkinson .)
	Question agreed to.

PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Protection of Freedoms Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 1 March 2011 (Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme)), 16 March 2011 (Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 2)) and 10 October 2011 (Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	2. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Nos. 16 to 18. One hour after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Nos. 51, 52, 59, 68 and 133. Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Nos. 1 to 15, 19 to 50, 53 to 58, 60 to 67, 69 to 132 and 134 to 145. Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages 
	4. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(James Brokenshire.)
	Question agreed to.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 40
	 — 
	Adding safeguards to powers of entry

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

James Brokenshire: The amendments would provide that powers of entry may be exercised only with the agreement of the occupier of the premises in question or on the authority of a warrant, unless the authority using the power
	“can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought.”
	That restriction would be disapplied where the power of entry is being exercised by a trading standards officer, a constable or a member of the Security Service, or in pursuance of the protection of a child or vulnerable adult.
	We are sympathetic to the objective underpinning the amendments. We all agree that powers of entry, particularly as they relate to peoples’ homes, should be subject to proper safeguards, but we believe that the blanket approach taken by the amendments is misconceived and, as such, could hamper legitimate enforcement activities and put lives at risk. The amendments are predicated on the basis that there has been an unacceptable proliferation in the number of powers of entry—some 600 such powers were created by the previous Government—and that in many cases there are insufficient safeguards attached to such powers. The Government share that analysis, which is why we have included the provisions in chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill. The problem we have with the amendments is not their objective, but the blanket approach they adopt, even if it provides exemptions for a small number of specific bodies. We judge that such an approach would simply not work. One size, in this case, does not fit all, and the fact that the amendments include limited exemptions serves only to demonstrate that the approach taken, while it might appear superficially attractive, is incapable of withstanding close scrutiny.
	In adopting the blanket approach of requiring in all cases the consent of the occupier or a warrant, the amendments fail to differentiate between powers of entry that support routine enforcement activity and those powers that protect the public from serious crime or from threats to life and limb.
	The exemption for powers of entry exercised by constables is certainly helpful, but there is no exemption to cover the powers of firefighters to enter premises without consent for the purposes of protecting life or property; the gas official who enters premises to prevent
	or deal with gas leaks or explosions; the officer from the Serious Organised Crime Agency who exercises police powers and is, therefore, not caught by the exemption for constables; and veterinary inspectors who need urgently to tackle pandemic outbreaks of serious animal diseases such as foot and mouth.

Keith Vaz: Does the Home Office have any statistics on the number of times that police officers have entered using the powers that they already have?

James Brokenshire: What I can point the right hon. Gentleman to is the published list of the various powers of entry that we analysed, as it indicates that the total number of powers for all agencies is between about 1,300 and 1,400. That is obviously quite a significant number, hence the reason why in our judgment the analysis, the review and the measures in the Bill are appropriate, given that the proliferation has expanded considerably over the past few years. As I indicated, about 100 new powers of entry were created under the previous Government, hence the reasons for the measures in the Bill and why we feel that the mechanism contemplated by the Lords amendments does not quite fit or work in terms of what is required.
	There will undoubtedly be other circumstances, not contemplated by the Lords in their amendments, in which an exception to the general rule should apply. The key point is that without examining each power individually we simply have no way of knowing whether the amendments add necessary safeguards to the overbearing powers of a state official or stymie the operation of a vital tool designed to protect the public.
	Given the acceptance of the need for exemptions, it might be tempting simply to add to the list of those officials who are exempt from the requirement to obtain a warrant or the consent of the occupier, but that approach is mistaken. In recognising the need for exemptions, we should not then rush to apply blanket exemptions. Naming specific officials, in the manner of the amendments, grants such persons free rein to operate without the need to consider a warrant or the occupier’s consent, regardless of the purpose for which the officials are seeking to gain entry. That is too broad an exemption.
	Interestingly, in the other place the Opposition supported the amendments, but are they really arguing that trading standards officers should, in all circumstances, be able to exercise their powers of entry without the consent of the occupier, or on the authority of a warrant? We shall have to wait and see what the official Opposition say in response to those points, reflecting on the debate that took place in the other place.
	Such an exemption might also give that person immunity from the review we intend to undertake, and that simply is not desirable. We want to review all powers of entry, including powers exercised by constables and by trading standards officers, but the presence of such people in the situation under discussion proves unequivocally that the amendments do not work.
	It has been suggested that amendment 17 offers the necessary flexibility by authorising entry without consent or a warrant
	“where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.
	But such a provision would simply create confusion and uncertainty, as it would open up the exercise of a power of entry to legal challenge by an aggrieved occupier who might argue that the requirement to enter the premises in question would not have been frustrated if he had been asked to consent or if a warrant had been applied for.
	I hope that my remarks make it clear that the Government are not simply inviting this House to disagree with the amendments and then leave it at that. As I have said, we support the principle that in the great majority of cases powers of entry in respect of domestic premises should indeed be exercised only with consent or on the authority of a warrant, but the way to achieve that is through the existing provisions in this part of the Bill. Clause 40, for example, allows us to add safeguards to powers of entry such as a requirement to obtain an occupier’s consent, providing reasonable notice, or getting a warrant before entering a person’s house. The new code of practice under clause 47 will govern the exercise of powers of entry and set out further safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and businesses.
	The duty to review powers of entry under clause 42 will require Ministers to examine all the powers for which they are responsible and report to Parliament on the outcome of that review. The reports of these reviews will indicate whether individual powers are no longer justified and should therefore be repealed or retained but with the addition of better safeguards.

Keith Vaz: Is there a timetable for the conclusion of the review of previous powers? It would be helpful to know, before we pass any further legislation, what the result of the review entailed.

James Brokenshire: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill, he will see that the time period contemplated is two years, in order to allow proper consideration of all the relevant 1,300 to 1,400 powers of entry. This is not something that will simply lie in abeyance. The review of all powers must be completed within two years of Royal Assent, and we have said that we will report back to Parliament every six months to provide an update on progress, so there will be a steady updating process. I hope that that gives him comfort. I also highlight to him the Home Office gateway, which provides an ongoing check and balance in relation to new powers of entry, as well as the ability to review existing powers of entry that may be triggered as a consequence.

David Hanson: What ultimate sanctions are in place in the event that the two-year review is not completed by any Department?

James Brokenshire: The review is a specific statutory requirement, and we are focused on ensuring that it is undertaken with all due expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirements of the ministerial code and other requirements on Departments and Ministers to abide by the law. In addition, the ongoing six-monthly review that I mentioned will enable the House to maintain pressure on Departments to ensure that the provision is being properly adhered to and followed through with the intent and spirit of the Bill.
	I point out to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that we have made significant progress through the Home Office gateway, which considers all applications by Departments for new powers of entry. To date, 19 applications to create or amend powers of entry have been considered, and we have added greater safeguards in every case. Every power of entry in respect of domestic dwellings that has been approved through the gateway process has included a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. We have also taken the opportunity to scrap a number of powers.
	I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that we are serious about ensuring that powers of entry are subject to appropriate safeguards and that we are committed to rolling back intrusive state powers and strengthening the privacy of home owners and businesses.
	When taken together, the gateway process and the measures that I have outlined add up to a significant commitment to tackle what we have recognised to be a significant infringement of the rights of home owners. I have also made it clear that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. I put it to the House that our approach will ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place to protect home owners, while providing greater legal certainty and ensuring that the police and others can act swiftly to protect the public. I therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.
	Lords amendments 16 and 17 were supported in another place by Lord Selsdon. I welcome the debate about powers of entry and look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I will put to him. When both I and Lord West were Ministers in the Home Office, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), commissioned him to write a review of entry powers. The report that Lord West produced was overtaken by events with the general election, but I will refer to it with regard to the matters before the House.
	The genesis of the Protection of Freedoms Bill lies in a document published in 2010 called “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda”. I hope that the Minister will not think this too harsh, but I thought that, on balance, it was a rather tawdry document and I disagreed with almost every word of it. I do not say that very often or very lightly. The Lords amendments, which were passed with the support of the Opposition in another place, as the Minister said, would hold the Government to account for what they said they would do in that document. It stated that a Conservative Government, who I accept are upon us, would
	“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety.”
	This is an area of private grief between Government Back Benchers in another place and the Government. The Lords amendments would allow the Government to deliver on one of their major promises. That is something that the Government have failed to do on many occasions.

Steven Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Government just a little leeway, after only two years, in untangling the giant pile of messy powers of entry that his Government left the coalition?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman has walked directly into my fist. “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda” stated:
	“When he became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown pledged to introduce a new liberty test to curtail powers of entry…He commissioned Lord West to undertake a review of entry powers. A final report by Lord West was supposed to be published by spring 2009, but has been continually delayed and kicked into the long grass.”
	Lord Henley discussed that very point in another place, and the Minister referred to it today.
	Clause 42, “Duty to review certain existing powers of entry”, places on Ministers of the Crown a duty to review relevant powers of entry within a relevant period, which happens to be two years. I may not be a great mathematician, but as I recall, we were criticised for kicking the matter into the long grass in 2009, yet now we cannot expect a final report until 2013 if the Bill receives Royal Assent. I ask the Minister and the hon. Gentleman whether that qualifies as kicking the matter into the long grass. I fear that it does. My noble Friend Lord West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath were criticised for kicking the matter into the long grass by delaying the review of powers of entry. However, clause 42 seems to provide for the very delay for which the Minister criticised us when he was the Opposition spokesman.
	In the spirit of due friendship that I offer the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on these matters, I hope he will reflect on the fact that had Labour remained in power, the review would have been completed within two years and then examined. Now we will have to wait until 2013 for it to be completed.

Steven Baker: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attempt, which we hear so often from the Opposition, to rewrite history and demonstrate Labour’s commitment to liberty. There are Government Members who would have been delighted if measures on powers of entry had been introduced by now, but I put it to him that the Government’s caution merely reflects a mature and sensible approach rather than the more gung-ho tone that some might take towards liberty.

David Hanson: It was mature and sensible reflection when we were accused of kicking the matter into the long grass in 2009-10, when I was a Minister in the Home Office. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has planted his flag in the ground on this issue, because he is holding true to the Conservative manifesto commitment. I am genuinely surprised that there are not more Government Back Benchers wanting to hold the Government to account for why they are not fulfilling their manifesto commitment. Perhaps he will do that in due course.
	My colleagues in another place supported the amendments, so that we could have this debate today and get the Minister’s comments on record. Concerns
	were raised, for example, about the term “trading standards officers”, which is not a recognised term. I would welcome him addressing those concerns.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested, we have some concerns about the review provided for under clause 42. It places a duty on Secretaries of State to review the powers of entry for which they are responsible and report back to Parliament within two years of Royal Assent, following the necessary detailed analysis. As I said, we were accused of kicking the matter into the long grass, but the Government must consider 2013 shorter grass than 2011, which is when we would have had the review.
	That aside, the purpose of the review under clause 42 will be to have each individual power of entry examined, to determine whether it is still required or whether it should be repealed, have safeguards added to it or be consolidated with similar powers to reduce the overall number. As we are already two years into the Government’s time in office and face the prospect of another two years before we hear back from the review, I do not believe I am far amiss in saying to the Minister and the hon. Member for Wycombe that the Government are potentially ducking the issue and leading the review into longer grass than we planned.
	I would like some updates from the Minister on the points we have made. How long does he expect each Secretary of State to undertake the review? Does he expect the reviews from each Department to be completed before the end of the two-year period? Will he report back on the reviews en masse, when all Departments have completed them, or will he do so when individual Departments have completed reviews on their areas of responsibility?
	Does the Minister expect to report back earlier than in two years’ time? As I have mentioned, what are the sanctions on Secretaries of State who do not meet the target? Will he report back on that? How does he expect Secretaries of State who have not met the target to report to the House? Can he guarantee that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the review in full once it is published? Will he give some indication of how many legislative proposals on power of entry he expects to be reviewed and in due course repealed? According to the Conservative quality of life manifesto, there are 1,242 state powers of entry. Will the Minister indicate whether he has set targets for the outcome of the review? How many of those will be in place at the end of the review? Will he indicate how many of those powers of entry will in due course be on the bonfire that he promised in the manifesto?
	The Conservative Government promised to cut back intrusive power of entry into homes. I am interested as to whether the Minister and his team will ultimately achieve that objective. We need clarity about the review. The Opposition will not support the amendments because we do not feel they are valuable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Minister’s opening remarks gave a degree of reassurance on the Government’s position, but I feel that the starting point should be that the forces of law and order and of the state should not as a matter of routine have the right to enter people’s houses. One of the most important freedoms that we enjoy as British
	subjects is that if somebody comes into our house without our invitation, it must be because some important crime has been committed, or there is some emergency or another immediate reason. The problem with the Minister’s reassurance is that there is always a suspicion that Governments do what is convenient rather than what is right, and that the bureaucrat always feels that it is easier to enter somebody’s home or office than to go through a complex procedure—to get a warrant or to obtain a justice of the peace’s authorisation—to go into somebody’s property.
	I remember listening to a brilliant speech by the present Attorney-General when the Conservative party was in opposition and when pulling back on such warrants was our formal policy. As the Minister has done today, my right hon. and learned Friend went through the vast numbers of powers that have built up—600 have been introduced in recent years and there are as many as 1,300 in total. How minor some of them are. If a council inspector believes that there is a flea infestation, he can enter somebody’s home to see whether fleas are hopping about. That was introduced in the 1930s, so it is not part of the recent accumulation of powers, but it reflects a century of belief in the big state and of allowing increasing powers to the state to take steps that are more convenient than necessary.
	This House is always here to protect the rights and liberties of the individual against the over-mighty Executive. Although I believe the present Government are undoubtedly the greatest Government in the history of mankind, it is none the less in the nature of Governments to try to increase the powers they have, because it is always more convenient to do so. One can imagine the advice from officials to Ministers—“Minister, it will be easier and quicker and save money if we do this”—but that must be weighed by the House against the historic and ancient rights that we have enjoyed and that are so important to us.
	We have enjoyed these freedoms to the great benefit of our nation and prosperity. The feeling of security that people have in their home—the feeling that they can go about their lawful business in their home without the forces of the state coming in to question what they are doing or how they are living—has allowed us to become one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Those ancient freedoms have underpinned all of that not just in recent years, but over many centuries. We have always been one of the freest countries in the world and one that has protected the property and rights of subjects against an over-mighty Crown more strongly than other nations have been willing to do.
	Although I have received—I think—sufficient reassurance from the Minister to support the amendments, I hope that the Government will carry out the review with the greatest urgency. Many people would have been more sympathetic to the Government’s view if, instead of just a rejecting motion, they had tabled an amendment with a bit more detail on the time scale, or perhaps a requirement that if the review is not finished in two years, any power that has not been reviewed must fall or be the subject of a warrant or the agreement of the person whose property is to be invaded.
	I will end my brief remarks by reminding the House of the words of Pitt the Elder—known as the Great Commoner, that proud upholder of liberties in the 18th century. What he said should ring true today for all subjects of Her Majesty:
	“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter”.
	That is a principle that we ought to uphold and fight for. The Government should push ahead as fast as possible to ensure that these 1,300 powers are cut right back purely to those that are essential in the fight to maintain law and order or to put out fires.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who eloquently reminds us that an Englishman’s home is indeed his castle and that it is vital that it be protected from an overactive state. I have great sympathy with what he said.
	I support what the Government are doing in the review. As we heard from the shadow Policing Minister, that was the position of the last Government, even though, as we were reminded, the number of powers has been increased—by 600, the Minister said—in the past 13 years. I am sure that if he consults the relevant Hansard reports, he will see that I voted for most, if not all, of the additions. Had it not been for the general election, the noble Lord West would have completed his review. I too would like the review to be completed within the two years. It is easy for parliamentarians to set deadlines that they perhaps know cannot be met and put further burdens on Ministers, but it would be helpful if the review could be conducted within that period.
	I am not sure by what mechanisms the review will be conducted. Will it be conducted by a joint committee of Ministers and will it include officials of various Departments? Clearly the Home Office will take the lead, but is there merit in commissioning—to use a word that will become of great interest to people—outside Government and allowing academics or practitioners to be involved in the process, so that it is not just Home Office officials but those who deal daily with the conduct of these matters? I would be interested to know how that will take place. It might help to speed up the review if it is taken out of Government and given to someone else to look at.
	My second question relates to the update that the Minister is proposing the Government give Parliament. Will that be an oral statement by the Home Secretary or a written statement, and will it be an amalgamation of what individual Ministers have said or just one statement on behalf of the whole Government?
	Finally, it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend not to initiate any new legislation that might affect this area until the review is over and has been published. Is it the Government’s position that, because an emergency or some unpredictable occurrence might require the use of emergency powers, we might have to enter this territory—that is, we simply cannot stop it happening—and increase the number of police powers or other powers; or is it their intention to say, “Let us pause and draw a line in the sand,” as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, and to consider has been done in the past, along with what they plan to do in future, before passing any legislation?
	Apart from those three points, I support what the Government are doing, and I think the review will be very helpful indeed.

Ben Gummer: I, too, support the general thrust of Lords amendments 16 to 18, but I completely understand the Minister’s concerns about the effect they would have on the legislation.
	I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on the need for some sort of restatement of our fundamental liberty with regard to private property, which is one of the underpinning foundations of English law. To that end, my addition to the points made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend is to ask whether we might have a restatement of that general principle. The amendment gives a negative statement about those powers that may not be used except in certain circumstances. I wonder whether, in their review, the Government might restate the general principle of the sanctity of property and of private property, so that that should be the bar by which all future incursions against private property will be judged, and so that exactly that kind of guard might be imposed on future Governments—a point to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded.
	I am very much reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister’s assurance that the matter will be considered within the time scale promised. On previous points where further work by the Government was needed, he has given an assurance and delivered on it exactly as he said he would. I have no doubt at all that he will do so in this case, and his comments so far give me great confidence.

Steven Baker: When I look at Lords amendments 16 to 18, my instinct is certainly to support them, but after many, many hours in Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that he has a thoroughgoing commitment to progress towards liberty, so I assure him of my future support for simplifying powers of entry. As I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place, when the knock comes on the door, householders should be able to know whether the person knocking has a right to enter, or whether they are permitted to refuse entry. However, having sat through both the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions and heard contributions from Opposition Members, I know that the Minister has met the forces of reaction. I encourage him not to succumb to reactionary opposition or to the notion that certain powers should be elevated over liberty in the interests of security or expediency. I am confident that he will be steadfast in the cause of liberty, so I will support the Government.

James Brokenshire: I rise to respond briefly to a number of the points raised this afternoon. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker) of this Government’s commitment and resolve to roll back the arms of the state that may seek to intrude into private life.
	The measures before the House this afternoon are important. They underpin our focus on ensuring that powers of entry are proportionate, appropriate and respect the right to be able to enjoy one’s home without undue interference. The House will also recognise, however, that there are certain circumstances in which such intervention might be appropriate—to protect health,
	to prevent harm or to ensure that criminals are legitimately brought to justice. That is why we are undertaking the review that I have outlined this afternoon.
	I assure the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that I understand his desire to get on with this. We have said that we will report back to the House on a six-monthly basis, and I anticipate that that will involve a joint report on behalf of all the relevant parts of the Government Departments undertaking the review, to provide an update on the progress and the steps that are being taken. We intend the review to be Home Office-led and it will be undertaken in large measure by officials, but they will be responsible to Ministers, and I assure the House that Ministers will be driving the process forward, recognising the House’s strong feelings about the importance of liberty.
	It was a bit rich of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to suggest that we were trying to kick this matter into the long grass and to defer or delay it. On the contrary, we are legislating through the Bill, we are taking action and we are setting out a clear process to roll back powers of entry, which grew enormously under the last Government. The fact that 600 new powers of entry were created during their period in office underlines the fact that due regard was not given to the implications of those measures. I am proud that this Government are introducing a clear mechanism to review the impact of powers of entry and the necessity of their remaining on the statute book or being made subject to further safeguards. The measures in the Bill will allow that to be done.
	I very much welcome the support that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will want to ask what target we have set, but I hope he has realised that we are not a Government who arbitrarily set targets. We will look at this matter in a measured, considered way and decide what is in the best interests of liberty and the protection of freedoms in relation to safety and security, as well as of the freedom from the intrusion of an overbearing state.

David Hanson: rose —

James Brokenshire: I will give way, having made a challenge to the shadow Policing Minister.

David Hanson: I sense that the Minister is about to finish his speech. Before he does so, will he try to answer the question that I put to him earlier? In the event of a Secretary of State not meeting the duty set out in clause 42, what sanctions would be available to address their failure to meet that target?

James Brokenshire: I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.
	I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.
	Lords amendment  16  disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.
	A New Clause

Stalking

Stella Creasy: I beg to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51.

Nigel Evans: With this, it will convenient to discuss amendments (c), (d), (e), (f) and Government amendments (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) thereto.
	Lords amendment 52, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 59 and 68
	Lords amendment 133 and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

Stella Creasy: The need for legislation to create a distinctive offence of stalking has been clear for some time. I therefore start the debate by welcoming the Government’s willingness to respond to these calls for such legislation. Our amendments reflect the need to ensure that this opportunity for progress is not missed and that the evolution of these proposals continues so that they can truly meet the needs of those we wish to protect.
	To put this case, I want to set out why we consider that the legislation as currently proposed is limited in its ability to deliver this protection, and what we learn from that in scrutinising the Government’s proposals that are on the table. We all now know that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has been unable to offer the protection from stalking required for its victims. It is estimated that there are currently 120,000 cases of stalking every year, but fewer than 4,500 were convicted of harassment in 2009; of those, only 565 were jailed.
	The current legislation is not able to cope with stalking because these behaviours cannot be meaningfully defined by specific forms of contact. Rather, this is an offence about the impact of conduct or patterns of behaviour by those individuals who fixate on others and seek to cause distress, fear or alarm. The current legislation offers only the same tools that we have at present to deal with disputes between neighbours—and it has struggled to cope as a result.
	The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created two criminal offences of harassment and putting people in fear of violence, as well as providing for restraining orders, which are more well known, where a breach, in theory, can lead to an arrestable offence. We now know, however, that victims of stalking talk repeatedly about the frustrations caused by the police being required to see patterns of behaviour, examples of a breach or evidence that someone has repeatedly damaged property
	or acted in a certain way or created a fear of violence. Others have talked about the importance of training the police, magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service to help them understand the range of acts that fall under stalking—including, especially, cyber-stalking. That is because it is a summary offence of harassment, and many felt that the police did not go far enough and did not allocate appropriate resources to investigating these cases, or frankly, that it was seen as simply not serious enough to warrant the effort. I shall return to the question of seriousness in a few moments.
	Little wonder that the recent inquiry into stalking found that 72% of victims were unhappy with the response they received from the criminal justice system, with the majority stating they had experienced stalking for over 18 months or more and through multiple forms of contact; yet only 47% said that their perpetrator was even charged. As Tracey Morgan, a key member of the inquiry panel into stalking has said:
	“stalking is where domestic violence was 30 years ago. It’s seen as a joke; a celebrity problem. Victims are told they should be flattered by the attention”—
	but we all know of the reality. We have heard the stories of people like Tracey whose lives were torn apart by a person who fixated upon her. We have heard of the ex-partners who torment men and women online and offline; we have heard of women like Clare Bernal who was brutally murdered by her former boyfriend, despite warnings about his behaviour.
	We know from other jurisdictions how having a specific offence of stalking can help to address these concerns. In the 10 years prior to the introduction of the offence of stalking in Scotland, Strathclyde police reported a total of 70 stalking-related prosecutions. In the first six months after legislation providing for a specific offence was enacted, there were 140 prosecutions in Strathclyde alone, and it is estimated that there will be between 500 and 600 in Scotland as a whole by the end of the year.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about Scotland. Scotland moved straight from “breach of the peace” legislation to legislation on stalking, so the comparison is quite dramatic. We in England and Wales are in a slightly better position, but the comparison is nevertheless invidious, which is why the proposed change in the law is so essential and welcome.

Stella Creasy: In order to establish whether the present proposals will deal with our concerns adequately, it is worth considering what has happened in Scotland as a result of the legislation providing for a specific offence, and also making comparisons with what is offered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
	On behalf of the House, let me thank those who have been campaigning on these issues, and who have led action both in the House and outside. Working with Protection against Stalking and the National Association of Probation Officers, the all-party inquiry into stalking— in which I know the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) participated—has tirelessly and persistently made the case for new legislation. I pay tribute to both those organisations, and to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who is present, for all their work on the inquiry.
	Although she was not able to be here today, I think that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), deserves credit for putting the case for the legislation in September last year. She also stressed the need for stronger sentencing and police training to improve responses.
	Finally, I think that we must all pay particular tribute to Baroness Royall, who, back in November, began tabling amendments to the Bill in the other place to introduce this law in some form and thus to force action on the issue. We can see that that tactic has worked. Ministers initially refused to accept the case, saying that the current legislation covered criminal behaviour of this kind, but their view has now changed, and that change is welcome. I note that Lord Henley himself acknowledged the work of Lady Royall in raising the issue.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. There has been a good deal of publicity and discussion on stalking over the last six or 12 months. Has my hon. Friend noticed any improvement in the attitude of police forces towards people who report stalking, given that such people have received no response in the past?

Stella Creasy: When I discussed the proposals with the police, they were anxious to ensure that we used this opportunity to get the proposals right. I welcomed their acknowledgment of concern about the way in which the legislation had been used to deal with the problems, and about the lack of training in what stalking might involve.
	As a result of this pressure, we stand here today to debate not whether proposals are needed, but the strength of the proposals that are on the table. We can see how the proposals are evolving as the Government respond to people who have been campaigning. The new amendments—as opposed to the proposals that were put to the other place last week—reflect further movement in the right direction, given the Government’s initial response to Baroness Royall’s proposals.
	It is in the spirit of ensuring that the Bill is meaningful and effective that Labour Members have tabled further amendments today. Having championed the need for legislation, we wish to ensure that this opportunity is not wasted. When we test the Lords amendment against the realities of the crime that we are discussing, and indeed the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we still see difficulties. In particular, we fear that the amendment presents the appearance of progress while failing to deliver through its confusing demarcation between section 2A and section 4A offences. We also believe that it does not give the criminal justice system the full confidence that it needs to be able to address this crime in its many manifestations, whether through investigation, prosecution or conviction.
	Our amendments (a) and (b) would ensure that the Bill would be what I call future-proof. When the Protection from Harassment legislation was enacted in 1997, Google did not exist. One of the compelling examples of the behaviour of the persecutor of Claire Waxman was the fact that he had searched for her name 40,000 times in a single year. The amendment reflects the need not only
	to train all who work in the criminal justice system to recognise that stalking can manifest itself in many ways, but to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with the innovation. As we have heard, many victims experience multiple forms of harassment, and do so many times before it is reported. These amendments would enable the Secretary of State to respond to the creativity of perpetrators and ensure that all those charged with protecting the public from these crimes are able to act. The inclusion of “inter alia” and the ability to add in additional clarification will give confidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the magistrates courts that these kinds of conduct could in future be relevant to this offence.
	If the Government will not accept the amendments, they must set out now, on the record, how they propose to ensure that the criminal justice system is able fully to comprehend and respond to the way in which fixations occur, both online and offline.

Robert Buckland: I am listening with great care to the hon. Lady’s argument about the use of the phrase “inter alia”. There may be a bit of an irony in using legal Latin to anticipate developments in respect of Google and Twitter, but I do not criticise her for that. The Lords amendment lists
	“examples of acts or omissions”.
	That is therefore a non-exhaustive list, so the problem the hon. Lady rightly identifies as possibly occurring cannot occur on the basis of any reasonable interpretation of the Lords amendment as it currently stands.

Stella Creasy: This is a point of genuine disagreement, because there is concern that what should be seen as a non-exhaustive list of behaviours and conducts for the offence of stalking will instead be seen as a list of the only such behaviours and conducts. We are trying to ensure both that training is given to all sectors of the criminal justice system and that there is clarification about the wide range of perpetrator behaviours that can be included. I gave the example of Google in order to argue that if the idea of cyber-stalking had been considered when the protection from harassment law was introduced in 1997, legislators might have recognised the need to address it. Given that we so rarely get an opportunity to draft legislation, it is important that we make any new laws as robust as possible, such as by ensuring that the Secretary of State can intervene. We believe that our proposal would offer an opportunity to address any concerns that might arise. Law makers might say, “This is a list of stalking behaviours and anything else isn’t stalking.” If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, they must explicitly state how they will ensure that this list does not become the only list of examples, rather than a starting point for our law makers.
	Our amendments to Lords Amendment 51 go to the heart of the inconsistencies in the proposals. We challenge the retention of a section 2A offence of stalking and the creation of a section 4A offence of stalking, differentiated by the concept of seriousness. We welcome the fact that, in response to Baroness Royall, the Government’s position has moved from that of the amendments tabled in the Lords, which set out stalking as purely involving a fear of violence. The new provisions go much further towards recognising the need to be able to act against perpetrators
	without waiting for physical harm as well as the different ways in which this crime impacts upon victims, and that is certainly welcome. However, the strengthening of section 4A does not undermine the inconsistency created by the retention of a section 2A offence for stalking.
	Under Government amendments (i), (j) and (k), section 4A will apply when someone has suffered
	“serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on”
	their
	“usual day-to-day activities”.
	Yet section 2A sets out a less well-defined offence of stalking that would secure a lower level tariff. That offence would be triable only in a magistrates court, with a fine or maximum penalty of just six months’ imprisonment. We believe that such a distinction between different offences and courses of action does not stand scrutiny. Specifically, it is unclear from the evidence of this crime what kinds of cases would fall under section 2A rather than section 4A. In respect of the wording of the new amendments, it appears that a distinction would be based on proving that someone has suffered a “serious” form of distress. Therefore, the Government must set out how that could be proved—for example, whether it would be similar to psychiatric injury, where we need a psychiatrist to say there has been a serious impact on the central nervous system. This also raises the prospect of medical records having to be disclosed, potentially giving more information to the stalker at court and also creating a higher burden to prove, so the CPS would again be less likely to charge under Section 4 and default to Section 2A, with the resulting lesser options for punishment.
	This also raises a point that we as parliamentarians should reflect upon in respect of whether we would ask the victims to have their lives altered as a marker of such seriousness. The survey commissioned by the university of Leicester for the Network for Surviving Stalking found that one third of victims of stalking said that they had lost their job or relationship or had been forced to move because of the stalking. Some 92% reported physical effects and 98% reported emotional effects, ranging from anxiety, sleep disturbances, anger and distrust to depression, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder. Half of all the victims had changed their telephone number; half of them had given up social activities; half of them had seen their performance at work affected; and a third of them had relocated. If the Home Secretary wishes to retain these divisions, she must tell us whether it is justifiable to ask victims to prove that their lives have been changed in such a serious way before we can offer them real protection. Does she not see the risk that the police could apply this “seriousness” test in choosing whether to investigate and secure a section 2A or section 4A offence, leaving victims in the horrific position of having to prove that their lives have been damaged in these ways in order to secure effective action against the perpetrators?
	As many experts have pointed out, this distinction risks retaining one of the problems with the existing legislation: it is extremely unusual for someone to be found guilty under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, with just 170 of the 786 people found guilty being given a custodial sentence. Some 53,000 harassment cases were recorded by the police in 2009-10, but in only 23 was a custodial sentence of
	more than 12 months given for breaching a restraining order and in just 27 was such a sentence given for putting someone in fear of violence. Under the current legislation, most perpetrators receive restraining orders on multiple occasions and yet still receive fines and non-custodial sentences. Both the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking state that they believe that
	“similar outcomes will come from an analysis of court proceedings under 2A.”
	Even if a case can be made for the retention of a “lesser” offence of stalking, the division also limits the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service to respond to cases effectively by setting out two separate paths for the same crime. As NAPO and PAS have pointed out, allowing the offence to be triable either way would have two advantages. First, if evidence came out during a magistrates court trial indicating that the matter was more serious than first thought and may warrant a sentence of more than six months, the case could be sent to the Crown court for sentence. Secondly, many stalkers who do not threaten violence and who may be tried under section 2A for less serious matters are, nevertheless, highly persistent. Without the power to refer to a Crown court, such people could appear persistently in magistrates courts, being liable only for six months’ imprisonment and automatically released at three months —if they were tagged, they would come out after one month and continue their behaviour.
	The amendments tabled by the Government maintain the risk that offences will not be adequately addressed, as at present, because they ask the CPS to choose between “lower-level” offences of stalking, as yet undefined, and those considered “more serious”. The challenge for all involved in addressing this offence will be to make such a distinction in any meaningful way as to merit it.
	In contrast, our proposed amendments to Lords amendment 51 offer the opportunity to correct this situation and ensure that this confusion is no bar to ensuring that those who commit these crimes are given appropriate sentences. Our amendment (d) to Lords amendment 51 proposes a simple definition of stalking that could clarify the difference between “harassment” and “stalking”: between neighbours who behave in unacceptable ways towards each other and the person who fixates on a former partner or someone they have never met but serves to cause them distress.
	Our amendment (c ) to Lords amendment 51 would help to ensure that it is open to the criminal justice system to respond to these crimes by making them triable either way, thus introducing the possibility, alongside the lesser sentences the Government are offering under section 2A, of a sentence of up to five years. If the Government will not accept the amendments, they need to set out precisely what constitutes a “lesser” crime of stalking and how it would be distinctive from the crimes they expect to be prosecuted under section 4A. In particular, I ask the Home Secretary to put on the record clear examples of the different criteria they expect to be applied to justify this division and to ensure that criminal justice agencies are able to understand the intent in their proposals.
	Finally, our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52 deals with how these crimes are investigated and with the importance of ensuring that the police are able to act. It would restore a power of entry to the properties
	of those arrested for stalking without a warrant to ensure that evidence cannot be destroyed. The power previously existed for cases of harassment, but was removed as an unintended consequence of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and many of us believe that this omission requires attention. Again, I highlight to Ministers the risks they are taking by creating two stalking offences, where one is indictable and the other is only a summary offence. Under their proposals, the police can enter a property to search only if the offence is indictable. The confusion between sections 2A and 4A could mean that officers hesitate in using this power to investigate matters relating to these crimes for fear of not finding enough evidence to meet the “seriousness” test. Seeking this power, and thus the possibility of investigation, would help to ensure that the police would not flinch out of confusion; those committing offences that the Government believe would fall into section 4A could be investigated without the police thinking twice. Without this power, there is a very real danger of evidence being destroyed as others act to protect those arrested for this offence. The possibility that it could take hours to secure a warrant allows that possibility—that time is valuable. Indeed, as we have seen with recent attempts to destroy evidence relevant to the prosecution of those involved in phone hacking, such behaviour is not theoretical. The fact that the police are currently able to search the property of a shoplifter but not to access the property of someone who has been arrested for stalking to seek further evidence—perhaps to see the shrine they have created or computer information on social networks—further reflects the difficulties our police will have with the measures as they stand in ensuring that they effectively protect victims.
	I note that NAPO and PAS state that they support the amendment for two reasons. First, it would put a limit on the amount of time that the accused had to wait at a police station before being questioned and, secondly, it would minimise the chances of the perpetrator’s associates disposing of any evidence. We have come so far with this vital legislation and I hope that the Home Secretary will go further today. None of us wishes to start again with new legislation, but victims of crime desperately need our help. We have an opportunity to create laws and ensure that there is training in all aspects of our criminal justice system that will mean that one person will no longer be able to torment another human being in these ways. There are flaws in the current proposals which I hope the Government will address by accepting the amendments. The Opposition, who have been supporting the proposals, will support the Government if they do that and will hold them to account for any missed opportunities if they do not.

Theresa May: I shall be asking the House to agree with Lords amendment 51. I am pleased and proud to be standing here supporting and speaking to amendments relating to the introduction of new criminal offences for stalking. Some years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate in the House about the tragic case of Rana Faruqui, the daughter of my constituent Carol Faruqui.
	Rana was stalked for some time. Sadly, the police did not pay attention to the instances of stalking that she reported to them and, as a result, Rana was ferociously murdered by the individual who had been stalking her. Since that case came to my attention, I have personally believed that we need to do more to take the issue of stalking seriously, so I am glad that we are debating this issue.
	It is fair to say that when the then Government introduced the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they believed that it would cover stalking and be adequate but we have seen over the years that it has not been taken as seriously as Members across the House would wish. Stalking is an appalling crime, both in itself and in the distress that it can cause an individual. It can also lead to physical violence and has, sadly, led to the death of the individual being stalked in cases such as that of Rana Faruqui. When I have spoken to stalking victims, they have said that some police officers are very sensitive to the issue of stalking and handle it very well and appropriately—dealing with it properly—but, sadly, others do not see the seriousness of the offence in the way that we would wish them to.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary will have heard my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). In the Home Secretary’s discussions with the police, have they begun to understand the sensitivity of stalking and that it is very difficult for someone to report it? It is at that interface at the police station that things can all go terribly wrong or well depending on the training and sensitivity of the officers concerned. Is the Association of Chief Police Officers aware of that and has she been able to discuss the matter with ACPO?

Theresa May: I have had some opportunity to discuss this issue with ACPO and those representing victims of stalking. Their comments are similar to what victims of domestic violence say to me. If an officer has been trained specifically in the identification of stalking and dealing with a stalking victim, then they, like an officer who has been specifically trained to deal with a domestic violence victim, understand the context and the issues that the victim is facing. Officers who have not had that separate training might not understand these issues. There are certainly matters that need to be addressed in terms of how the police look at stalking. I hope that the creation of stalking offences will be part of the process of ensuring that all officers recognise the importance of the issue.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the amendment, but does the Secretary of State agree that the public’s severe lack of confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to deal with stalking is a major problem, and that legislation, while welcome, is not the whole solution? We also need training for officers; that is the only way that we will improve officers’ reactions when victims of stalking come forward, increase public confidence, and increase earlier reporting of stalking.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I hope that the creation of the legislation and the offences will, in itself, send out
	a message, but of course that has to be backed up by training. I also hope that we can ensure that the public generally recognise the importance and significance of stalking as an offence, and the distress and problems that it causes to an individual who is being stalked. I remember holding a discussion on the subject with a number of people, and a victim of stalking made the point to me that when she first came forward to say that she was a victim, someone she knew said to her, “Oh, aren’t you lucky?”. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we need to change that attitude.

Mark Tami: That is an important point. We have seen how long it has taken the police to treat domestic violence as seriously as it should be treated. The Home Secretary’s comments show that victims are sometimes told that it is nice to receive that sort of attention. There is also the issue of the police not treating stalking seriously; it is only in very serious cases, where death may result, that we address stalking as the important issue that it is.

Theresa May: Of course, what we want is for the issue to be addressed properly earlier; we want victims to have the confidence to come forward, knowing that what they say will be taken seriously, so that the matter can be dealt with properly before it gets to the point of physical violence, or indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, before the death of the individual who is being stalked.

Tom Brake: How does the Home Secretary think that the public can ensure that the issue is on the agenda for the police and crime commissioners, who are to be elected in November?

Theresa May: From time to time, my right hon. Friend and others raise issues relating to ensuring that matters are on the police and crime commissioners’ agendas. Bodies representing victims of stalking will, I am sure, do all that they can to ensure that candidates for the post of police and crime commissioner are well aware of the issue and therefore take it into account when looking at policing in their force area.
	This is, of course, the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the issue in the context of the Bill, so I want to take a moment to set out the background to the Lords amendments. Last year, the Government consulted on whether the law needed changing to introduce a new offence of stalking. The consultation closed in February, and the majority of respondents said that a new specific offence was needed. Separately from the Government’s consultation, an independent inquiry, chaired by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), also concluded that the law needed strengthening better to respond to the concerns of victims of stalking. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his inquiry team for all that they have done to raise the importance of the issue; he has done that regularly in the House, too. I also commend the hard work done by the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking, who have, entirely rightly, been championing victims’ rights for some years. I hope that they have seen that the Government have responded to that.
	Following the Government’s consultation and the independent inquiry, we amended the Bill in the other place to provide for two new free-standing offences—stalking, and stalking involving fear of violence—which will sit alongside the existing harassment offences in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The new offence of stalking in proposed new section 2A of the 1997 Act will be tried in the magistrates court, with a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000, or both. The new offence of stalking involving fear of violence in proposed new section 4A will be triable either way—in the magistrates court or the Crown court. If tried in the Crown court, it will have a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
	The changes that we have introduced also give the police a new power of entry for the new section 2A offence of stalking. The more serious either-way offence of stalking involving fear of violence automatically attracts a power of entry. It was clear from our consultation discussions that the police want the power to search for equipment used by stalkers so that they can gather the evidence necessary to secure convictions and prevent stalking behaviour from escalating. We have listened and responded.
	There has been widespread support for these changes. Last week I received a letter from a victim of stalking, who said:
	“The action your government has taken will change the lives of thousands of people for the better—and save many. Thank you for treating this crime with the seriousness it deserves.”
	Our amendments mean that for the first time, we will have specific offences of stalking. However, I know there have been suggestions that we should also recognise the emotional suffering that victims of stalking experience. That is why we tabled Government amendments (g) to (k) to Lords amendment 51 and Government amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 133. Those amendments will widen the section 4A offence to incorporate behaviour that causes the victim serious alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on his or her day-to-day life.
	This change will mean that when a stalker causes their victim, for example, to take alternative routes to and from work, when the victim is afraid to leave the house or when they have to ask their friends or family to pick up their children from school because they are afraid of running into their stalker, this could count as behaviour that attracts the more serious section 4A offence and therefore, on conviction on indictment, a maximum five-year sentence. The message could not be clearer—anyone who ruins someone’s life with their stalking should expect to be severely punished. I know that NAPO and Protection Against Stalking have been involved in the development of these changes and I am grateful to them for their contribution.
	Let me take some time to deal with the amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which are virtually identical to the ones that were tabled in another place. Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51 relates to new section 2A(3) of the 1997 Act which sets out a list of examples of stalking behaviours. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who introduced the debate, that “examples” is the key word here. That is what they are intended to be—examples of stalking behaviours.
	Amendment (b) seeks to add a catch-all to this indicative list of behaviours and would allow the Secretary of State to add behaviours to the list of examples. As I said, the list is intended to be illustrative only; it is not intended to set out all the types of stalking behaviour that might be exhibited. We want to ensure that it is wide enough to capture any behaviour, including stalking conduct, that has not yet been developed. The hon. Lady is right. It may well be that there are means of stalking that we cannot yet think of which will develop over time. It is right that we have within the legislation the ability to take account of those, should they develop.
	The reason I think it is important not to create a catch-all provision or take a power to expand the list, but to set it as a list of examples, is that we have deliberately made it non-exhaustive. As soon as one tries to set everything down in the legislation, one risks the opportunity for individuals to find ways round the definition that has been set down in the legislation. What is important here is that the Bill says, “These are the sorts of behaviour that come into the category of stalking,” but if we try to be too rigid in setting it out, I fear that that could have a negative rather than a positive effect.

Stella Creasy: Given our shared concern about the inventiveness of perpetrators, will the Home Secretary undertake to review annually the range of behaviours that will be identified through this process so that we can understand whether it is being used as a list of examples or solely as a list of what constitutes stalking?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we will indeed keep the legislation under review. The last thing we want to do is to find that the legislation is being misinterpreted. The reason it is set out in the terms, “The following are examples,” is precisely to send a message to people that that is all they are. There will be other activities that come under the definition of stalking for the purposes of this criminal offence, but we are not putting that exhaustive list in the Bill.

Bob Stewart: I agree with my right hon. Friend that well-trained police officers will be able to identify exactly what stalking is. From their experience and training, they will be able to say, “That is an example of stalking and we should do something about it,” and I hope the legislation will allow that to happen.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting our approach. It is important that a degree of discretion is available to police officers so that they can identify behaviour that is not listed but would come under the definition of stalking.
	A number of the comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow related to the creation of two offences—the lower level and higher level offences—and I think that there is a need to differentiate between the two. The practice of having two such offences is followed in a number of other areas in the criminal justice system, which I think is important, but we will be developing training—a number of hon. Members have mentioned
	this—for agencies in the criminal justice system in the coming months to ensure that they are aware of the nature of the legislation being introduced, for example the point about the list being one of examples only.

Stella Creasy: In which case, will the Home Secretary set out clearly and explicitly what she considers to be a stalking offence that would come under section 2A, rather than section 4A, because I think that there is genuine concern that having two offences but not defining the difference between them will cause problems for the police at a local level?

Theresa May: It is normal practice when introducing offences to have a lower level and a higher level offence, and training for the criminal justice system agencies will look at identifying the sort of behaviour that might come under one or the other. Again, in these circumstances it is always difficult, and I think inappropriate, to try to state absolutely what behaviour would come under one offence and what behaviour would come under another, because the context of behaviour might be significant; behaviour that might be considered lower level in one context might be considered higher level in another. It is important that we do not try to set out absolute definitions and that discretion is available to the police in interpreting the offences and looking at the context in which they are committed. I know that the hon. Lady’s view is different from mine, but the point is similar to the previous one: the more we try to define the offence in legislation or on the Floor of the House, the less we can offer the discretion and flexibility that might be necessary to an individual officer or the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with such cases. I fear that we might end up in a situation that is not so good if the terminology we use is too rigid.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow also tabled amendment (c) to Lords amendment 51, which would make the lower-level section 2A offence triable either way. It is currently a summary-only offence, reflecting the fact that it is a lower level offence and should be properly tried in the magistrates court. More serious behaviour should be captured by the higher level section 4A offence of stalking involving fear of violence. Amendments (d) to (f) seek to capture the emotional distress suffered by victims of stalking. I have already set out how we intend to address this point, and our approach is supported by NAPO and Protection Against Stalking. She referred to the need for clarity in the criminal justice system, yet her proposals attempt to blur the distinction between the two offences and, I think, would lead to less clarity rather than more.
	The Opposition’s other amendment in this group, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52, would remove the requirement to obtain a warrant before searching a potential stalker’s property or possessions under the new section 2A offence. As the offence is a summary-only offence, which is by definition a lower level offence, I think that requiring a warrant for a search represents an appropriate balance between protecting the vulnerable in society from stalkers and respecting the rights of those who are innocent until proven guilty. The higher level offence, as I said earlier, automatically allows the power of entry, which is appropriate, given that it is a more serious offence. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Opposition’s amendments.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her clear exposition of the position. May I seek some clarification on the position regarding persistent offenders, who quite properly should be dealt with in the Crown court? Will guidelines be issued to prosecutors to deal with the particular issue of persistent offenders—in essence to ensure that they are dealt with by the either-way mechanism and can then be sent to the Crown court either for trial or for sentencing?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The persistency of an offence is a factor that should be taken into account when looking at the seriousness of it. Perhaps I can attempt to give the hon. Member for Walthamstow some indication on these matters. My hon. Friend raises the issue of someone persistently undertaking the offence of stalking, and we hope to reach a situation in which early examples, or early behaviour, of stalking can be identified, captured and therefore dealt with through the lower level offence before it moves on to stalking behaviour—the more serious offence that is set out in proposed section 4A.
	We do take stalking very seriously, however, and we are determined to do all we can to stamp it out. We have created the two new offences, explicitly putting stalking on the statute book for the first time; we are giving the police the powers of entry that they need to disrupt stalkers at an early stage; and we have responded to the concerns of victims and of victims’ organisations by making it clear that behaviour which ruins lives will be properly punished. I think that those changes will make a real difference to the lives of victims, and I commend the Lords amendments and the Government’s amendments to those amendments to the House.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is a pleasure to follow the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in what is a very interesting debate.
	Some 10 months ago I set up an all-party committee covering both Houses, including Members from all parties and none, by which I mean it included Cross Benchers from the other place as well. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) played a very active part in the committee’s deliberations and is to be commended on the hard work that he put in.
	We looked at the whole issue of a stand-alone offence of stalking, something that I have long believed to be a necessary tool in the criminal justice armoury. We were helped immensely by Laura Richards of Protection Against Stalking and by Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers, to whom we as a committee are very grateful. The researcher Delyth Jewell also did a sterling piece of work in clerking the committee.
	We took evidence from July last year, and we are indebted to those who came and gave of their time to provide evidence to us. I think in particular of the victims and the victims’ families. It took a great deal of bravery to relate some of their accounts. Many were harrowing, almost beyond belief and ended, as the Home Secretary said of her constituent, in death. They were awful situations, so we are indebted to those individuals, because they came before the committee and their evidence has convinced us all that this is an urgent matter that needs to be put right.
	We took evidence from lawyers, who said that there was a lacuna in the current law. I was a Member in 1997 when the Protection from Harassment Act became law, and we thought it a fairly decent piece of legislation. Indeed, by and large it has been and has dealt with a great range of offences, but on the particular offence of stalking in large parts it has not fit the bill. The lawyers told us that they, too, thought we needed to consider a separate offence of stalking.
	I agree with the Home Secretary that some police officers are very good at pursuing stalking through the provisions in the 1997 Act, but I am afraid—I say this as the brother and the son of police officers; I do not have any great beef with the police generally—that the vast majority cannot handle the problem, hence the fact that 72% to 75% of those surveyed reported that they were very dissatisfied with the police action taken. That is partly to do with complications in the provisions and partly to do with the new form of the offence, which often involves e-transmissions of some kind, and so on. It is also due to a lack of specific training, which is extremely urgent in this context.
	We took evidence from psychologists who advised us that in many instances it is possible to address such offending behaviour. It is vital, in the case of individuals who would be subject to new section 4A and sent away for a period of incarceration, but also in the case of those subject to new section 2A, who would not be, that criminal psychologists get involved fairly soon in order to divert them from their behaviour, because, by its very nature and essence, stalking is an obsessive, often repeat, offence that goes on and on. We heard examples of individuals in prison who were planning the next stalking venture from their prison cell.
	I am advised by Laura Richards, in particular, that about 20 to 25 practitioners in the UK are able to diagnose and, in large part, deal with stalking behaviour and divert offenders away from it. That is important, because otherwise all we will do is take them off the streets for a while and then they will be back. Whether they have committed a 2A or a 4A offence, it is vital that we make available the necessary specialist clinical services to deal with them. I am no psychologist and I am not medically qualified, but I know that they often have behavioural, as opposed to psychological, problems. People are trained to help them address that, and their expertise must be used to ensure that we have a proper, tough regime to deal with these awful offenders.

Mark Tami: The right hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. The danger is that, whatever the penalties may be, these people come out of prison and carry on committing the same offence, because they are obsessive to the point that whatever action is taken against them, they will keep on doing it and ruining people’s lives.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. By its nature, that is the kind of offence that it is, and that is how it ruins people’s lives. I have spoken to many victims who say that it is almost like having a black cloud behind them day and night, and they have to turn around every now and then to make sure that the person is not there. It is an awful situation to be in. I believe that the Bill deals with the problem in large part, if not completely; there are one or two things that I would like to discuss. I am in sympathy with some of, but not all the points raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow.
	We suggested in our report that the offence should be one that is capable of being tried either way, but to be fair to the Home Secretary, she has clearly expanded on how the Government are now looking at this. Although I would argue that stalking is never a minor offence, there are more serious initial offences. It will be partly to do with whether the person has been before the courts before for a similar offence involving a different victim or the same one. My fears are allayed, to a certain extent, by what the Home Secretary said, although we did recommend, as I said, that the offence should be triable either way, as the 4A offence would be.
	Following lobbying by NAPO and Protection Against Stalking, Lord Henley announced in the other place an amendment to the wording of the amendment to include psychological harm. I welcome that amendment to the amendment—it is almost like an extension to the extension—because that is crucial. When I had the privilege of meeting the Prime Minister to discuss this, two young women were there who had given us evidence, both of whom would not necessarily fall into the physical harm category but into the psychological damage category. One young woman has received therapy for the past 10 years because of stalking. I am pleased that that element is now included. In effect, it completes the circle.
	Research has shown that more than half the women who are stalked express problems that are similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, sometimes on and off and sometimes without showing the symptoms immediately. A third of such women suffer similar conditions but are not diagnosed in that way. It is thought that about 80% of victims suffer psychologically. That point is extremely important, so I welcome the latest Government amendment to address that. The 1997 Act created the offence of harassment, but a conviction could be obtained only if it could be shown that the victim feared violence. We have jumped beyond that now and it is important that we have done so. I welcome that amendment, because it strengthens the Bill in many regards.
	It seemed to the inquiry that part of the problem was that conduct was not taken seriously enough under the 1997 Act. The section that purported to deal with stalking behaviour made it only a summary offence, which gave the impression that it was a minor matter. As we all know, it is not a minor matter, but an extremely serious one. The impression was given that it could just be waved away by the magistrates court. That impression has been damaging. For all I know, it might have contributed to the fact that many police officers were not effective in dealing with stalking. I have not come here to run the police service down. I am a great supporter of the police service. We are looking forwards, not backwards. However, the research that we received showed that the police were not very effective in that regard.

Tom Brake: It was put to me earlier today by senior police officers that one reason why the police have got more effective at tackling domestic violence is that more women police officers have come into the force. Did the right hon. Gentleman’s inquiry find a link between stalking being treated effectively and the involvement of female police officers?

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We took evidence from several police officers, among whom were several knowledgeable females, who had been training their respective forces. Given that we now have a large number of good senior and junior police officers who are women, it will hopefully be more straightforward to put this legislation into effect than the 1997 Act.
	I had come here to argue that the inquiry wanted a single indictable, either-way gateway. However, I am persuaded by what the Home Secretary said. I do not disagree with her analysis of new sections 2A and 4A of the 1997 Act. Hopefully, there will be such discretion for the police. When a repeat offender under new section 2A comes up again, he will clearly be a customer for new section 4A. It is extremely important that that is understood. Searches without warrant will happen under new section 4A, but not under new section 2A. I still believe that that power would have been helpful under new section 2A as well, because the police tell us that the earlier we move in on such people, the better the outcome is likely to be.
	Whatever legislation we enact, it is crucial that the police, prosecutors—particularly those within the Crown Prosecution Service—judges and magistrates are trained and instructed properly, through various courses, on the necessary approach to this awful offence.
	I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will curtail my remarks, but I first wish to put various questions on the record. I do not realistically expect the Home Secretary, or indeed any Minister, to respond to them all this evening, but I hope she will agree to respond in writing in due course.
	My first question is whether there will be a consultation with NAPO, Protection Against Stalking and other stakeholders on the interpretation by police and prosecutors of the list of stalking behaviour contained in new section 2A. I agree that “inter alia” is otiose in the circumstances. There will be a review of the behaviour covered, so the point is dealt with without our having to discuss amendment (a).
	Will there be an ongoing discussion about the need for improved victim advocacy, which is vital? I can say without breaching any confidences that the Prime Minister also took the view that that was vital. Will there be a full consultation with PAS, NAPO and other stakeholders on the implementation of the new sections of the 1997 Act? The Home Secretary said that there would be an annual review, which seems to me to provide a vehicle for including those stakeholders.
	Will the impact of the new sections on police practice and prosecutions be monitored once they become law later this year? Will there be a full consultation with PAS, NAPO and other stakeholders on the interpretation of the definitions of “fear of violence” and of psychological harm involving serious alarm and distress, and will those definitions be set out in guidelines or training?
	Will it be possible to monitor the impact of evidence being seized because of the need for the police to obtain a warrant for a perpetrator’s arrest prior to their property being searched under new section 2A? I was going to ask whether there would be consultation on the guidelines for prosecutors, to ensure that persistent stalkers are charged under new sections 2A and 4A, but that has been dealt with, so I need not bother the Home Secretary with it.
	I ask the Government to facilitate the treatment of offenders in such a way that as many as practicable can be diverted away from their offending behaviour. Appropriate courses need to be put in place for police, Crown prosecutors, judges, magistrates and probation officers, to ensure that they are thoroughly trained up. I mention Crown prosecutors because the Crown Prosecution Service has now put together a package to deal with the new legislation. Unfortunately, it will deal only with e-crime, not with crimes in general. I believe that that mistake needs to be put right.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a number of detailed questions, and I will be happy to get back to him in writing. We have had very good consultation and a very good relationship with NAPO and Protection Against Stalking in developing the Bill, and I expect to continue to have good consultations and discussions with them as we take the matter forward.
	On the issue of perpetrators, the aim of reducing reoffending lies behind the rehabilitation work that the Ministry of Justice is doing, and I will certainly bring the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Justice.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that assurance, which I take to be an invitation to write to her. I had another seven or eight questions, but I shall not labour the House with them this evening.
	Before I sit down and allow others to take the matter further, may I once more express my sincere gratitude to all the parliamentarians who took part in the research work? I think this may be the only time when a cross-party group that is not a Committee of the House has succeeded in bringing forward a change in the law. I do not know how often that will happen, but it is certainly a precedent that I favour—I would say that, wouldn’t I?
	I wish again to say how grateful we are to Laura Richards of PAS and Harry Fletcher of NAPO, and to all the victims who assisted us by giving evidence. I am also very grateful to the Home Secretary, because I know she has been on the side of the angels on this issue for some time. I am sure she shares my pleasure in the fact that something positive is now being done.
	The Bill’s provisions on stalking show that the Government have carried out a listening exercise, and we will now have firm laws. They will prevent lives from being ruined and, crucially, from being lost. They represent an important change in the law, and I have been privileged to play a part in achieving it. The inquiry has been the most enriching and worthwhile experience of my political life, and I am delighted to see the result.

Robert Buckland: I will not repeat the constructive comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and others on the provisions that all parties have accepted. I am delighted to have been part of the process, but hope that does not give me, as a relatively new Member, a false sense of what can be achieved so quickly by consensus. The Government have moved with speed and with willingness to listen, and I commend their fleetness of foot. I am grateful to them for acting and amending their own amendments. That shows their willingness to listen to the debate and to engage with NAPO and Protection Against Stalking, to which I pay tribute.
	The journey does not end here. Once the Bill is passed, it is essential that we get training for police officers and guidance for prosecutors absolutely right and monitor the progress of the new laws. Stalking is emotional terrorism; it is a crime of control, a crime of manipulation and, yes, a crime of violence. It was quite clear from the evidence heard by the all-party inquiry heard these changes to the law were necessary. I started as somebody who was not convinced that the law should be changed, but I ended as somebody who was entirely persuaded. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.

Stella Creasy: We have listened to the debate, but we are still not satisfied on the question of lesser and more serious charges of stalking. We therefore wish to press amendment (b) to a vote.

Question put, That amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51 be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 200, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Government amendments (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) made to Lords amendment 51.
	Lords amendment 51, as amended, agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 52, 59 and 68 agreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (c) made to Lords amendment  133 .
	Lords amendment 133, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying offence

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 2.
	Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 4 to 8.
	Lords amendment 9, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 10 to 15, 19 to 29, 56, 62, 64 to 66, 70 to 101, 114 to 116 and 134 to 137.

James Brokenshire: The amendments relate to the provisions in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill. Some are of a minor and technical nature, but some are of more substance; given the number of amendments in the group, I propose to focus my comments on the more substantive amendments. We are returning to themes and issues that have been debated at length in the House. Obviously, we judge that improvements have been made in the other place. We very much look forward to debating those issues, as well as the amendments to the Lords amendments proposed by the Opposition.
	Amendment 1 takes account of the change in part 5 of the Bill to the definition of “vulnerability”. The new definition is intended to be more straightforward for the police to understand and apply. It relates to the ability of the police to retain the DNA profile of someone who has been arrested but not necessarily charged, and to a measure built in to provide certain safeguards where there was some proximity between the person arrested and the possible victim of a crime. Part of that relies on the definition of “vulnerable adult”. The definition originally applied in clause 3 was taken from the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As that Act and definition are amended by the Bill, the 2006 Act definition is no longer suitable because it focuses on the care or treatment being provided to the individual, rather than on the characteristics of the person themselves. For the purposes of clause 3, a different definition is needed, which is why we have imported the definition from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which links vulnerability to the ability of an individual to protect themselves from violence, abuse or neglect, and which we feel fits more neatly the purposes of clause 3. As I have said, the provision is intended to provide a further safeguard where the police arrest someone for a violent or sexual offence, if there is proximity to the victim.
	Amendment 2 introduces a limited exception to the general rule, brought forward from the previous Government’s Crime and Security Act 2010, that all samples will be destroyed within six months of being taken. I think both sides of the House agree that DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as practicable, and a six-month window was felt to be appropriate. However, the Government tabled amendment 2 in the other place in response to representations from prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service. They told us that, in a
	limited number of cases each year, it would be necessary to retain individual samples in order to deal with any subsequent challenge by the defence to the comparison made between the DNA of the individual and that found at the crime scene—in other words, to provide reassurance in relation to criminal prosecution. Prosecutors expressed concerns that if they could not retain samples in these cases, they might unable to withstand such a challenge and that acquittals on technical grounds might result.
	It might assist right hon. and hon. Members if I give an example of the type of case where such an issue might arise. A crime scene stain could well contain a mixture of the blood of both a stabbing victim and their attacker, and perhaps a third person such as an innocent house-mate of the victim. In such case, the quantity of material from the victim is likely to exceed significantly that from the attacker and the innocent third party. Without retaining the reference samples from all three individuals, the chemistry and analysis used to derive the three individual profiles, and thus make a match to the suspect, might be open to challenge in court.
	Lords amendment 2 therefore creates a safeguard by inserting a mechanism into clause 14 to enable the police to decide very early in a case, before any samples have been destroyed, to make an application to the local magistrates court to retain all the individual samples in the case for 12 months. In the majority of cases, 12 months should be long enough to identify a suspect and complete the pre-trial disclosure process, as part of which it would be established whether the defence intended to mount a challenge to the derivation of the DNA profiles and/or the matches that may have arisen; if not, the material would be destroyed at that point. If the derivation of the profiles remained at issue, a further application could be made to the trial judge to retain the material for an additional 12 months.
	Lords amendment 3 updates the existing exclusions from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that the new regime in part 1 of the Bill does not apply to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 or the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, both of which have bespoke retention and destruction regimes in schedule 1 to the Bill. In case the shadow Policing Minister is wondering, I will come to the Opposition’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3, but I will go through the Government’s amendments before dealing with to the Opposition amendments.
	Lords amendments 73 to 83 to part 3 of schedule 1, relate to the retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints as set out in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, as opposed to those that fall under standard PACE regimes. Specifically, amendment 73 ensures that new section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act applies only to biometric material that is held by a law enforcement authority under the law of England, Wales or Northern Ireland, that is not subject to existing statutory restrictions, and that is held for the purposes of national security. The remaining amendments also clarify the scope of the application of the provisions amending the retention regime under section 18 of the 2008 Act. They extend the list of existing statutory restrictions set out in the Act and permit law enforcement authorities to retain anonymous
	material indefinitely. The amendments would essentially prevent the premature deletion of profiles, before a proper investigation into who the sample belongs to has taken place.
	The separate issue of biometrics in schools is dealt with by Lords amendments 7 to 14. The Government consider a child’s biometric information to be highly personal and sensitive, and as such, it should be afforded greater protection. We debated these issues at length in Committee during the Bill’s earlier passage through this House. There is general agreement in both Houses that schools and colleges should be required to obtain the consent of a child’s parents if they wish to take and process a child’s biometric information. We listened carefully to the concerns raised about how the proposal to seek the written consent of each parent would impose an unreasonable additional burden on schools and colleges, and that it could discourage schools and colleges from using biometric recognition technology. Lords amendments 7 to 14 would remove the requirement for both parents to give consent, and provide instead for schools and colleges to be required to notify both parents that they intend to take and process the child’s biometric information. As long as no parent objects in writing, the written consent of only one parent will suffice.
	We believe that Lords amendments 7 to 14 strike a sensible balance between ensuring that the views of both parents continue to be taken into account and preserving their right to object, as well as ensuring that the administrative burden on schools and colleges is not too great. The amendments also bring the consent requirements in the Bill more in line with all the other forms of consent that schools and colleges are required to have. The main difference in this instance is the express provision to notify both parents of a child, and the stipulation that if any parent objects, the processing of their child’s biometric information cannot take place. The amendments in no way lessen the key purpose of this part of the Bill, which is to ensure that children’s personal and sensitive data are properly protected.
	The amendments to part 4 of the Bill relate to pre-charge detention. Lords amendment 27, which is a response to a further recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, relates to clause 58, which contains a power for the Secretary of State to increase the maximum limit of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days for a three-month period in circumstances where Parliament is dissolved or in the period before the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. The Committee previously considered a similar order-making power in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. That Act contains a duty for an order made when Parliament is not sitting to be laid as soon as practicable afterwards. To ensure consistency across these two pieces of legislation, and in keeping with the Committee’s recommendation, Lords amendment 27 requires a draft of a clause 58 order to be laid before Parliament once it has reassembled following a general election.
	Lords amendment 28 is designed also to respond to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by removing any requirement for an order that revokes a 28-day pre-charge detention extension to be approved by Parliament. The extension by order of pre-charge detention to 28 days would be
	exceptional, as we have said previously; therefore revoking the order would simply return the pre-charge detention arrangements to the status quo.
	Lords amendments 29 and 101 are a response to a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on stop-and-search powers. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the police officer who is considering whether to authorise the use of stop-and-search powers under section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 is reasonable in his or her consideration of the necessity of using the powers, as well as in his or her suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place. The Government believe that the amendments made in the other place have improved the relevant provisions of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
	Let me turn to the Opposition amendments in the group, starting with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3. On our reading, it would effectively disapply all the substantive provisions of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill in cases of an alleged offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In practice, if a person was arrested for, or charged with, any offence under the 2003 Act, there would be no requirement to destroy DNA samples and no time limit on the retention of DNA profiles or fingerprints. It is interesting that, with amendment (a), Labour appears to be changing the position it held in government, when Ministers appeared to argue that a six-year limit was appropriate. They also said that they acknowledged the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the S and Marper case, and their proposals in the Crime and Security Act 2010 were intended to follow through on that.
	When the Bill was last before this House, we discussed at some length whether it was appropriate to retain such material for three or six years. Now the Opposition apparently wish to ignore even their own previous analysis, and instead go back to keeping everything for ever in cases involving offences under the 2003 Act. Before, when we challenged the Opposition on this, they said, “No, no, it is not our intention to keep DNA profiles for ever. We wish to stick rigidly to the six-year rule,” so it is interesting—and notable, given their statements that they are now moving more in the direction of protecting individual liberty—that they are now reverting to type and seeking to retain indefinitely the DNA profile of people who might be innocent of any crime.
	As I have said, we have already discussed this matter at great length and looked at the analysis that has been undertaken. The Information Commissioner, when considering the analysis of the previous Government, said that that analysis did not support a period of anything like six years. If that is the case, how can it support indefinite retention? I will certainly listen carefully to the Opposition’s explanation of why they have fundamentally changed their position since we last debated these matters.
	Under the provisions of the Bill, those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, will have their DNA held for three years, and the police will be able to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. Those arrested for a qualifying offence but not charged, where the victim is vulnerable, will also have their DNA held for three years, subject to the approval of the new independent commissioner. We considered this provision carefully in the light of the fact that these cases are
	often very sensitive, and we judged that the protection afforded by the Bill is appropriate and proportionate. If six years was too long, how on earth do the Opposition justify indefinite retention? The previous Government’s proposals received virtually no external backing in the light of that inconsistency.
	In setting what we feel is a more appropriate retention period for those who have not been convicted, we responded to the concerns expressed about putting the right people on the DNA database—about 1.2 million people who have not been convicted of any offence are on the database—but we also thought it appropriate to do more about the people who have been convicted of an offence, sometimes a serious one, but whose DNA profiles are not on the database. That is why we encouraged the police to complete Operation Sheen, which identified more than 300 subjects in prison custody who had been convicted of murder, manslaughter or a sex offence but whose DNA profile did not appear to be recorded on the national database. I am pleased to tell the House that that operation has recently been completed, and that it has resulted in an additional 376 such individuals having their DNA taken and uploaded to the database.
	Having completed that work, and using the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed in the final days of the previous Parliament, the police service has embarked upon Operation Nutmeg, which seeks to trace and sample those with similar convictions who are now in the community. We believe that our proposals represent an appropriate balance between the rights of those who have not been convicted by a court and the need to protect the public in some of the most difficult cases. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3 in the strongest possible terms.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9 would provide that a school or college could process a child’s data if at least one parent has consented or no parent has objected. I will listen carefully to the Opposition’s arguments for this amendment. It appears to us that they want to move to an opt-out regime, rather than the opt-in approach provided by the Bill. That might be a misinterpretation of their amendment, so I shall listen carefully to what the shadow Minister has to say. As we have previously made clear, we do not believe that an opt-out approach would do enough to protect the rights of parents and pupils in relation to the child’s biometric data, because such information is highly personal and sensitive.

Diana Johnson: rose —

James Brokenshire: I will give way to the hon. Lady, and as I have said, I look forward to hearing the Opposition’s clarification on the amendment.

Diana Johnson: Will the Minister clarify what would happen if one or both parents have refused permission for biometric data to be taken from their child, but the child wishes to consent? Would the child have the right to have their biometric information taken?

James Brokenshire: As the hon. Lady will be aware, the provisions relate to the consent of the parents. They say that the consent of one parent is required, but it is left open to the other parent to object, and such an
	objection would stand. If need be, in the light of the arguments that the right hon. Member for Delyn makes for his amendment, I will provide further clarification.
	Finally, I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. The amendment is a response to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that questioned the necessity of an affirmative procedure for an order revoking a temporary extension order. In the Government’s response to the Committee, we concluded that it was not necessary to subject a revocation order to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it would be neither appropriate nor meaningful. The Committee did not take issue with that conclusion. It would be perverse if Parliament were in the position of debating and voting on a revocation order when it had not had the opportunity to approve the original temporary extension order, given that the order had been revoked before it had been approved. Any such debate would be likely to be academic because a temporary extension order lasts for only three months, and there is therefore a strong possibility that an order would have expired before any debate had taken place. Furthermore, a revocation order will simply return the maximum period of detention to 14 days, the maximum period already approved by Parliament, which negates the need for parliamentary approval of a revocation order. That remains the Government’s view, and I hope that the House will not support the Opposition’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

David Hanson: As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.
	We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.
	The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the
	Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.
	Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

Philip Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if someone’s DNA is held on a database, it does not impinge on their freedoms to go about their daily lawful business, unimpeded in anything they want to do? Does he further agree that people’s freedoms are enhanced by having as many murderers, rapists and other serious offenders brought to justice and put behind bars, rather than having them wandering the streets because their DNA is not on a database?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter. He has been consistent in his support for the Opposition’s proposals and has joined us in Divisions. Deep down, he understands that the Conservative party’s legacy as the party of law and order is seriously being put at risk by measures that are soft on individuals who have the potential to commit rape, murder or other serious crimes, who could be prevented from committing those crimes if their DNA were on a database for a longer period. I believe that that presents a real risk not just to public, but to the reputation of the Conservative party.

Julian Huppert: I want to be clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about this Lords amendment. Does he accept that the amendment would mean that somebody accused and arrested only once for a malicious sexual offence would have their DNA kept for ever—in clear contravention of the European Court’s ruling? Is he admitting that his amendment is deeply flawed and that he is using it merely as a debating point rather than planning to insist on a vote—in other words, that he does not believe in his own amendment?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that through Lords amendments, we are seeking to find a mechanism to debate serious issues such as rape and other serious crimes. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes rape and a range of associated issues, which we want to debate. The amendment might not have been tabled perfectly; it was done at the last minute in order to find a way to discuss the key issues. We wanted the Government to hear again, before the Bill receives its Royal Assent, arguments from people such as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and some of my hon. Friends who have real and genuine concerns. We do not want the Government to proceed with allowing the DNA of some individuals to be destroyed earlier than it needs to be, as this will potentially put at risk individuals in the community at large.

Mark Field: I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but surely he must recognise that there are shades of grey in this debate. He says that we need to be protected from murderers and rapists, but many law-abiding citizens have concerns about being fitted up by the police or the possibility of the science and technology proving faulty—and who knows where DNA technology will be in 20 or 30 years’ time? Does he not recognise that there are shades of grey in this particular debate, and that painting it in the simplistic way he does—although it is good that we are having this debate—rather debases his argument?

David Hanson: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to turn this into a simplistic debate. As Home Office Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and I wrestled with officials for many months about where to draw the line on this matter. We recognised that there were different places to draw it. What we tried to do in government was to draw the line at the furthest point we possibly could to ensure that we maximised the police’s ability to collect and examine DNA so that subsequent crimes could be solved by its use. Because rape and murder are not always one-off crimes but repeat offences, we wanted to prevent further victims downstream. We looked at that in the light of our European responsibilities, and we drew the line at six years.
	To answer the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I still wish to draw the line at six years today. I accept that the amendment may be technically flawed, but its purpose, given the limited opportunities available, was to put our concerns to the Minister, as I have explained. We want to stress that the impact of sexual offences and other serious crimes needs to be examined. What is the clear difference between the Minister and me? It is the fact that his proposals to restrict the use of DNA put at risk people’s lives and their ability to enjoy them freely without being subjected to sexual offences. I fear that the Minister and I will continue to disagree on those issues. Let me tell him that the gut instinct of many Conservative Members is to share the gut instincts of many Labour Members. What we are trying to do is at least to give the Minister an opportunity to look at these issues again.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are very concerned about the way in which DNA is collected and stored? Clearly, when someone
	has been reported, questioned and possibly arrested by the police, but then exonerated—with no conviction and in many cases no trial—surely there is no case for storing their DNA. This is what leads to a great sense of unease for many people and probably diminishes relations between the community and the police as a result. Is my right hon. Friend not concerned about that; I know that he had to make these judgments as a Minister?

David Hanson: We did have to make those judgments when we were in government, and our judgment was that the having the envelope of six years was consistent with our European obligations, and also with the pattern of offending. If people had not reoffended within the six years, the likelihood of further offences diminished considerably. People tended to reoffend within a one-year to six-year period. I genuinely take my hon. Friend’s concerns about the retention of DNA impacting on people’s civil liberties. However, I support what the hon. Member for Shipley said as being raped, murdered or subjected to serious crimes also has an impact on people’s civil liberties.
	As a Minister I had to make a balanced judgment, and the judgment reached by me and by my colleagues was that six years was an appropriate limit. There is an honest disagreement between the present Minister and me about that.
	The Government’s own research—research carried out by the Home Office in July 2010—found that 23,000 people every year whose DNA would be retained on the database as a result of our proposals, but that would not be as a result of the Government’s, would commit further offences. We are talking about 23,000 further offences. My amendment may be flawed—I do not have recourse to all the fine civil servants who are available to the Department—but my aim was to initiate a discussion about sexual offences, and to persuade the Minister to reflect on the issues once more before the Government’s proposals became law.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister know of any innocent person who has been negatively affected by the placing of his details on a DNA database? This is a question of balance. The Government’s main aim appears to be to ensure that the DNA of someone who has not committed a crime is not put on the database, but as far as I know that does such people no harm. Surely a greater danger is posed by the person whose DNA should be on the database but is not, and who then commits a crime that is not detected.

David Hanson: I hesitate to agree with the hon. Gentleman yet again, but I do agree with him. As far as I am aware, the fact that someone’s DNA is on the database under the 2010 Act is known only by the police—if they wish to examine it—and by the person concerned, and they can tell whoever they wish to tell, or alternatively tell no one. It is not a matter of public knowledge.
	This is the nub of my amendment, flawed though it is. Of the 23,000 people I mentioned earlier, about 6,000 a year will go on to commit serious crimes, including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. I simply ask—as I have on every occasion when I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue—why we should allow that to happen when we have the ability, potentially, to prevent it from happening.

Robert Buckland: Nonsense.

David Hanson: We have had a debate about this and there is an honest disagreement between the Minister and me, but the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the DNA database, as constituted under the 2010 Act, would prevent those 6,000 serious crimes from taking place. He may shake his head, but that is what he needs to recognise.
	Let me give an example involving an event that took place after our debate on 10 October. A newspaper report, headed “Warning as bogus cab driver is jailed for rape”, stated:
	“Marcos De Souza, 32, was trapped because his DNA was held on file even though he had no criminal record. The Brazilian had lured the drunken 19-year-old into his car as she left a house party in Camden in February.
	The victim was so drunk the sex predator believed she would never remember what was about to happen to her…But when she arrived home dishevelled, her boyfriend encouraged her to call police and De Souza’s DNA was found after tests. The sex predator was traced because police had taken his DNA when he was arrested after a previous girlfriend claimed he had assaulted her. The case was discontinued but his profile was retained on the national database.”
	That DNA would not have been retained under the Government’s current proposals.
	I accept that my amendment is not perfect. I may not have advanced the same argument in the past, and it is possible that I shall not do so in the future. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Minister to reflect again on the views of the hon. Member for Shipley and other Members.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for missing the earlier part of my right hon. Friend’s no doubt excellent speech. Given that his amendment is raising a number of issues, will he respond to the concern that some of us feel about the disproportionate number of black and Asian people whose names and details are on the database? There seems to be no explanation for it.

David Hanson: I consider the retention of the six-year limit specified by the 2010 Act to be a proportionate response. Certainly issues related to stop-and-search powers and charging need to be investigated in the context of police practice, but the fact remains that the DNA that is being kept under the Act has prevented the committing of further crimes, and would continue to do so if the six-year period were retained. I am happy for my right hon. Friend to take up the issue of how DNA is taken in the first place, and to draw attention to instances in which people are picked up and charged but not convicted, or picked up and not charged at all. However, I venture to suggest that that issue is separate from the one that we are considering, which is the retention of DNA over a long period.

Michael Crockart: May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman? The basic principle being advanced is that the retention of DNA prevents further crimes, but I think that what he really means is that it assists in the detection of further crimes. The mere holding of DNA would not have prevented even the case that he cited.

David Hanson: I am afraid that I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. Someone might be picked up as a result of the retention of DNA following the commission of one crime, but how many times has the hon. Gentleman seen reports about serial rapists or serial murderers on the television news? Potential further victims might not be actual victims because the individual concerned had been apprehended owing to the collection of his DNA. As I have said, I accept that my amendment is flawed, but I believe that the principle behind the use of DNA and the retention of the six-year period for the purpose of dealing with serious sexual crimes is fundamental.

Michael Crockart: I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he should be very careful about the language that he uses in debates such as this. He should not blindly claim that the retention of DNA would prevent 6,500 further offences, as he did earlier, because that is simply not correct. The retention of DNA would contribute to detection, but it would not prevent.

David Hanson: I venture to disagree. The figures that I gave were Home Office figures produced for the Minister in July 2010.
	The point that I am making, which I think is valid, is that the retention of DNA could potentially, in a number of cases, prevent repeat offences. That is why the hon. Member for Shipley supports the amendment, and why my hon. Friends agree with what I have said. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is sometimes a case of making a balanced judgment. We make judgments as Ministers, and the “six years” judgment was the one that we made within the envelope that was available to us. I believe that it was the right judgment, and my amendments—which I accept are flawed—were tabled so that we could debate the principle again.

Jonathan Edwards: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with some interest. Would it not be more consistent with his argument about prevention if everyone’s details were put on a DNA database—not that I am recommending such a course of action?

David Hanson: There is a range of views in the House, but what we have been trying to do consistently, both in opposition and in government, is maximise the amount of time for which we can retain DNA within European law, and we believe that six years is an appropriate period. I believe—and Home Office information on future crimes confirms—that that can help us to catch criminals and bring people to justice, and indeed it has done so. I ask the Minister to think again before it is too late. I welcome the changes that he has made in Lords amendments 1 and 2, I welcome his introduction of further safeguards, I welcome the fact that Lords amendment 2 allows DNA samples to be examined for different periods, and indeed I welcome the changes that he has made generally. I simply ask why we have not considered them in a wider context so far.
	I want to say a little about two amendments which, at a very late stage, were grouped with the DNA proposals by Mr Speaker. Lords amendment 9 deals with biometric
	testing in schools. It changes the law so that only one parent, rather than both parents, must give written consent, but retains the position whereby either parent can withdraw consent. Our amendment changes the wording from “and” to “or” so that biometric data can be collected if one parent has given consent or neither parent has withdrawn consent.

Julian Huppert: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments are carefully drafted and that he intends what they state. Does he agree that the consequence of that change would be as follows: if no parent has consented but neither has actively objected, that would count as consent—in other words, consent would be assumed even if neither parent had ever said they were happy for that to happen?

David Hanson: Yes; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has dealt with this matter in Committee and throughout the Bill’s passage, and that is the position of the official Opposition.
	We note the amendments proposed in the other place by the Government, and there has been some recognition that the original clauses as drafted were far too onerous, as they needed both parents to give written consent for biometric data to be taken from the child. The amendments also correct an omission, by recognising that not all children have parents, and that those with caring responsibilities needed to be included in this provision for it to be able to work effectively. However, we also note that one parent can still overrule the consent of the other in agreeing for the child to give biometric data, which, again, can cause confusion for schools. We think that, overall, this policy is still unwieldy and unmanageable for most schools.
	Furthermore, we do not believe that allowing a child to override their parents’ wish to allow biometric data to be taken is sensible or correct. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that would be the case under the proposals as they currently stand. There does not appear to be any other circumstance in which a child of, for example, five years of age can overrule parental consent. Also, we note that if the parents have refused to give consent, the child is not in a position to override the parents’ wishes if the child chooses to give consent. We think that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9 would be a further sensible step, by allowing schools to operate this policy in a more manageable way by presuming an acceptance of biometric data being taken if no contact is made by the parents or carers once they have been notified.
	I welcome Lords amendment 27. It gives a more prominent role to Parliament. As I have argued previously, it would be appropriate for the Government to lay an order before the House in order to ensure that these matters are dealt with during recesses or general election campaigns. It is important that the Government lay an order before the House, but it is also important that the Government make a statement as to the purposes of the order. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will not lay any order before the House without making a statement to the House explaining the reasons for seeking an order in those exceptional circumstances.
	I have concerns about Lords amendment 28. It will allow the Government to withdraw temporary extensions to anti-terror measures without any parliamentary
	procedure at all. The effect will be to demand that the Government must seek parliamentary approval when strengthening anti-terror measures, but that they can weaken anti-terror measures without consulting Parliament. I heard the Minister’s explanation of that. Temporary extension will be brought in only during times of exceptional risk and the individuals held under these measures will be considered a serious threat to national security. Therefore, if Parliament has had to decide that these measures are necessary in the first instance, Parliament should also get to decide that these powers are no longer necessary. There is no more important issue than protecting the public, but we must have an explanation and an order placed before the House when these powers are revoked.
	I accept that our amendment is flawed and does not achieve the objective I would wish, but there are major issues in respect of the retention of DNA which the Minister should, even at this late stage, reconsider and re-examine in detail. I hope he will also answer the questions I asked about counter-terrorism and biometrics in school.

Kate Green: I wish to raise one specific issue in relation to Lords amendment 3, and I put on the record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Ministers propose that the possible holding of DNA on the database beyond the period covered by the legislation could be agreed on application to a district judge. My understanding is that they have drawn on the experience in Scotland, where agreement from the sheriff and the sheriff courts is required. Has consideration been given to extending that provision to cover justices of the peace who are members of the lay magistracy? Unlike in Scotland, the magistrates court works as a single bench; there is no hierarchical difference or difference in terms of courts between district judges and lay magistrates.

James Brokenshire: We have carefully considered the issue of the balance between the lay magistracy and the more professional judiciary. On the specific issues in question, we judge that because of the likely number of cases and the role required, the current measures are the right ones. However, we will continue to keep this under review as the legislation comes into effect and is applied.

Kate Green: I thank the Minister for that assurance, and I certainly hope the situation will be kept under review. District judges are paid members of the magistracy, and I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that there is less professionalism in the quality of judgments of the lay magistracy.

Keith Vaz: First, may I apologise for missing the opening speeches in this debate? I imagine, however, that they followed the usual form, with the Minister saying there are real problems with the retention of names on the database and the Opposition saying they ought to be retained because of the possibility that someone whose DNA is retained may well commit an offence in future, so better to hang on to it than to get rid of it.
	My attention was drawn to this matter when a constituent of mine who had no previous convictions was at a pub and intervened to prevent a fight between two individuals. As a result of his intervention, his DNA was retained,
	and remains on the database. To be fair, the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), said it was important that Parliament as a whole should debate this issue. My position is that if someone has not committed an offence, their DNA should not be retained on the database. There is absolutely no reason to do so. We can either have a position, as set out by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—as I doubted whether I could pronounce his constituency, I almost called him the hon. Member for the whole of Wales—under which everyone is on the DNA database, so that is fair to everybody, or we can have a position whereby only the DNA of those who have committed an offence is on the database.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the disproportionate number of black and ethnic minority people whose records are kept and the disproportionate number of young people who are pulled in for questioning because of incidents in the street and although often no charge is made, their DNA is kept, and they are then under some form of surveillance? Does he think that that is very damaging to their relations with the police?

Keith Vaz: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a concern about certain other groups, as well as those in ethnic minority communities, whose DNA is retained disproportionately. We have proportionately the largest DNA database of any country in the world. I am sorry to say that at the end of the previous Labour Government we lost our way on civil liberties issues. That has been acknowledged and there has been a mea culpa; those on the Front Bench, leaders and candidates in the Labour leadership election have all admitted that this had been a problem for us. However, we now have an opportunity to pause and to look at these issues carefully again.

Philip Davies: I wish to bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the case of his constituent who intervened in the fight and was put on the DNA database. How has that person’s life been negatively affected by having those details on the DNA database? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if people do not go on to commit a crime, they will not be negatively affected by having their details on a DNA database?

Keith Vaz: I ask the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks up for the rights of the individual, this: why should a totally innocent person who seeks to intervene to stop a fight—one of the have-a-go heroes of this world, of whom he is the champion, not just in Shipley, but in other parts of the country—have their DNA retained because of their act of kindness in trying to stop further violence? It is absolutely wrong for that to happen; such people should be able to intervene and not fear that any DNA should be kept.

Philip Davies: I will have another go. Rather than asking me a question, although I am happy to debate it at a later date, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer my question: how was this person negatively affected by having their details on the DNA database?

Keith Vaz: I thought that I had answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. Why should a person in such a situation, through no fault of their own, have any part of their identity retained by a third party, given that they were not involved in any criminal offence? This is about freedom and liberty; it is a freedom not to have our information kept on a database.
	If everybody was on the DNA database, the situation would be different. I am not advocating such an approach, because the state already has far too much information on us. We talked about all the offences created under successive Governments in respect of entry into people’s properties and the review that that Government have announced. Why should we suddenly want to give up all this information? Who is to retain it? How long is it to be retained for? Those are crucial questions and this Government are adopting the right approach. We have to pause, we have to examine what has happened over the past few years and we have to say, “Enough is enough.” I hope that, in looking at these issues, we will address the fundamental flaws in the database. If any suggestions are going to be made to improve the situation, I am sure that Parliament would want to enact them. However, the course that has been advocated—removing the DNA of innocent people over a specific period—is the right one to adopt at the moment.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 2 to 15 and 19 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 64
	 — 
	Restrictions on scope of regulated activites: children

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 30.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we will discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 31, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 32 to 47.
	Lords amendment 48, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendment 49, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendment 50, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 53 to 55.
	Lords amendments 57 and 58.
	Lords amendment 60 and 61.
	Lords amendment 63.
	Lords amendment 67.
	Lords amendment 69.
	Lords amendment 102, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendment 103, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 104 to 113.
	Lords amendments 117 to 132.
	Lords amendments 138 to 145.

Diana Johnson: I wish to put on the record the fact that Lords amendments 33 to 36 are very welcome, as they relate to a matter raised in Committee and on Report, and directly with the Prime Minister. Originally,
	the Government planned that anyone committing a serious sexual offence against a child would not automatically be placed on the barred list unless they had worked with children or planned to do so. We are pleased that the argument we made in Committee has been accepted by the Government and that now, for all serious sexual offences committed against a child, the perpetrator will automatically be placed on the barred list. The original plans were bureaucratic and appeared to the general public to leave children in a potentially vulnerable position, so we very much welcome the Government’s action.
	Both Houses of Parliament have debated extensively the vetting and barring part of the Bill. One of the key issues debated at length was what constitutes “supervision” of a volunteer and how that relates to ensuring that children are properly protected. Initially, in the Commons, the Government turned their face against defining “supervision”, but they have now set out a definition, albeit a very weak one, in amendments 30 and 31, which refer to both children and vulnerable adults.
	At this stage, I wish to refer to the excellent report by the all-party group on child protection, chaired with great knowledge by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), which also called for a tightening up the definition of “supervision”. Amendments (a) to Lords Amendments 30 and 31 deal with this issue, and it is important to set out why the definition of “supervision” is so important.
	Under the Government’s new system, any employer, voluntary sector body or charity will be aware that, from the Bill’s enactment, they will be able to obtain full disclosure of information about an individual only if that person is in “regulated activity”, which is now much more narrowly defined in the Bill. To take schools as an example, we know that all employees in a school will be in “regulated activity”, so full information on teachers and caretakers, including details of cautions, convictions and barred status, and any soft information, will be available. However, we also know that if we delve a little further in a regulated setting, we find people who might have volunteered within the school—to read with the children in an individual classroom a few times a week, for example. They will not be deemed to be in “regulated activity” if they are supervised within the school. Will the Minister clarify whether the school will be committing an offence if it requests information on the barred status of a volunteer who is supervised? The measures mean that schools will not have the right to any information about whether a volunteer had been barred by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. If a school decides to apply for a Criminal Records Bureau check, they will be provided only with very basic CRB check information.
	I will return to this point in relation to Lords amendment 48, but first let me address the question of supervision. There is genuine concern that “supervision” is a very loose concept, which can mean many different things to different people, and that could put children and vulnerable adults at risk.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her kind words. I apologise that I was not quite in the Chamber when she started speaking. Are there not two areas of risk? First, if someone has something in their background that has previously been identified, it should be notified
	to the school so that the school can make an appropriate decision. Secondly, the supervision needs to be close to ensure that the behaviour and propensity to groom a child and build a specific relationship with them can be identified sooner.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She speaks with great knowledge and makes very important points. Those two issues are key when it comes to looking at supervision, volunteering and information sharing. The problem is with the looseness of the definition of supervision. Supervision must be close enough to make it meaningful. When a volunteer is in a classroom engaging in an activity such as teaching a child to read or listening to a child read, there is a formation of trust between the volunteer and the child. That might be in a classroom where a teacher and teaching assistant are present, but unfortunately grooming could be taking place in some cases. Similarly, a volunteer sports coach develops a level of trust and relationships with young people on the sports field. Such bonds and levels of trust are also formed in youth clubs.
	A number of highly informed Lords raised those questions in the other place. I pay tribute to the excellent contributions of the noble Baronesses Royall and Butler-Sloss, the noble Bishops of Hereford and of Newcastle and the noble Lord Bichard who, as we all know, conducted the Soham inquiry and has great knowledge of this area of child protection. I ask the Government to reconsider what the noble Lords said from a position of great knowledge and experience.
	It is very important that, wherever possible, supervision is meaningful and ensures that everything can be done to make sure that volunteers behave properly at all times and that children are kept safe. The vast majority of volunteers give their time freely and want to give something back to society, and we applaud them for doing that, but we know that people who want to harm children are very devious and manipulative. They are always looking for a way to access children, and if there is a weak link in the chain—the weak supervision of volunteers, for example—they will use that to their advantage. So that employers fully understand all their responsibilities in having volunteers on site or within their organisation, and use best practice in dealing with volunteers, it is important to provide a proper definition of supervision and guidance.
	The Sport and Recreation Alliance, Fair Play for Children and many other charities have highlighted the problems of using the notion of supervision to decide whether a person is in a position to exploit their relationship with children from reading with children in a class or volunteering as a sports coach. We have considered several definitions of supervision in our deliberations on the Bill. One was about day-to-day supervision, but after a long debate it was felt that that definition would not be enough to ensure close supervision. For example, a football coach could see their supervisor for a quick chat at the beginning of the day and that could be it for their supervision for the day. They could then be with children for long periods of time each day, perhaps taking them to a distant football field for several hours out of the supervisor’s eyesight and earshot. Similarly, a drama volunteer could be working with children in another room away from a supervisor, week in week out. They might have a short supervision once a day
	with the supervisor, but for the majority of the time they could be away from any real oversight. Most people would think that such volunteers should be subject to full background checks, and that if they are not, they should be effectively and constantly supervised.
	The definition of supervision we have set out in amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 30 is
	“constant monitoring by an individual engaged in a regulated activity who is on the same site and able to maintain close visual and audio contact with the individual who is under supervision.”
	We believe that definition is helpful and sets out for everyone who needs to read and act on it the required standard and what is expected when supervising a volunteer in regulated activity. Given the importance of this issue, I will seek to press the amendment to a vote to test the opinion of the House.
	Lords amendment 48, which the Government tabled in the other place, provides welcome clarification on how police forces should record cautions. The effect seems to be that cautions will now always be treated as convictions. The inevitable result of that will be that many more cautions will be disclosed on CRB checks. Given that the Government are to disclose more information on CRB checks, I am surprised that they continue to block the release of information on barred status to a school or voluntary organisation. That is why my hon. Friends and I tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 48, under which barred status issued by the Independent Safeguarding Authority would be treated in the same way as a conviction or caution. Under our amendment, barred status could be disclosed to a school or voluntary organisation when they request an enhanced CRB check on a volunteer. The Government appear to be making it an offence for such organisations to make a request about barred status, as they previously could.
	We have spent many hours discussing in Committee, on Report and in the other place how the arrangement would work. I am concerned that the Government have not heeded the advice offered to them by a range of knowledgeable sources, including the NSPCC, Fair Play for Children and the Sport and Recreation Alliance. Those organisations have all called for barred status to be revealed, as has the noble Lord Bichard, who conducted the review of the Soham murders. He tabled amendments on this issue in the other House for which he had the support of many noble Lords including several bishops. I hope that at this late stage the Minister will reflect on the opinions of so many experts in this field.
	Let us consider where these questions might arise. Suppose that a supply teacher is barred from working with children after substantiated allegations of inappropriate conduct are made by four schools. Suppose that teacher then goes to another local authority and volunteers to hear reading in a classroom, twice a week, taking children out of the classroom and working with them on a one-to-one basis for 15 minutes. Under the Government’s proposals the school would be prevented from finding out that that person was barred from working with children. I do not think that is right and I believe that the vast majority of parents would agree with me.
	The Government have consistently stated that they do not believe it is proportionate to reveal barred status, but they are happy to reveal any criminal conviction, regardless of whether it is relevant to child protection;
	similarly, any caution can be disclosed, regardless of whether it is relevant to child protection. Yet information on whether a person has been assessed by experts at the Independent Safeguarding Authority and deemed inappropriate to work with children cannot be disclosed. The Government’s response has been to say that the evidence leading to the barring decision will be revealed. To that end we welcome Lords amendments 37 and 38, but information sharing between the ISA and the police is not enough unless that information is then passed to the school. One of the key recommendations from the Soham inquiry was about the need to share information.
	In the case that I outlined, the school is being deprived of two vital pieces of information. The first is the evidence uncovered by the ISA. When the ISA receives a complaint, it investigates it, and follows up references and so on, but the results of the investigation will be withheld from the school. The second piece of information withheld from the school is the analysis of, and decision on, the evidence that was looked at by experts at the ISA. In the example of the teacher, it is now possible that a Criminal Records Bureau check would reveal that a complaint had been made against the teacher, but the school would not know how the complaint had been investigated or whether it had been substantiated. That is not really fair to the individual or to the pupils being put in danger. In the future, there will be no way to distinguish between a malicious accusation and one that has been investigated and upheld, because both will be revealed in the same way.
	Given the constraints on time, I will not press that amendment to a Division, but I hope that the Minister has listened to the points that I made. I hope that he will reflect on the expert advice that has been offered, especially in the other place, and will look to introduce through secondary legislation the measures that we suggest.
	Finally, I shall comment briefly on the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has tabled about human trafficking. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 49 recognises the important role of the rapporteur. Opposition Front Benchers feel that the Government’s suggested way forward is not acceptable and that an independent rapporteur should report to Parliament annually, so we support that amendment. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 50 sets out the important role of the legal advocate in ensuring that children who have been trafficked are properly looked after if they come to the attention of the authorities. Again, Opposition Front Benchers offer their support for that important amendment, which would ensure that we complied with the conditions set out in the relevant directive.

James Brokenshire: In many respects, I am speaking on behalf of the Minister for Equalities, who is also responsible for criminal information; she would wish to be here if it were not for a family emergency.
	This group of amendments relates to parts 5 and 7 of the Bill. Part 5 will implement our reforms to the disclosure and barring arrangements, which will scale them back to common-sense levels. The Lords amendments to part 5 address a number of concerns raised by hon. Members in our earlier deliberations on its important provisions. We have had useful debates on the issues in
	this House and the other place, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) welcomes Lords amendments 33 to 36, which amend clause 67 and relate to the criteria for automatic barring by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
	Our review of the disclosure and barring scheme concluded that it did not make sense to bar somebody if they had never worked, and are unlikely ever to work, in regulated activity. We recognise that this change to the barring arrangements was a matter of concern to hon. Members in this House and in another place, and to partner organisations. We therefore brought forward the amendments, so that people convicted of the most serious offences, such as the rape of a child—in such cases, representations are not allowed—are barred automatically, whether or not they have any link to regulated activity. In all other cases, a person will be barred only if they have been, are, or might in the future be involved in regulated activity. Should they ever apply to work in regulated activity, their details will be passed to the Independent Safeguarding Authority or the disclosure and barring service, which will consider them for barring at that point. I welcome what the hon. Lady said in that regard.
	On amendments 30 and 31, obviously there continues to be a genuine difference between the two sides of the House. I listened carefully and intently to what the hon. Lady said. Amendments 30 and 31 amend clause 64, which amends the definition of “regulated activity” and introduces the concept of regular and day-to-day supervision of individuals whose work would be regulated activity if unsupervised. We previously debated at length the appropriate level of supervision; the Opposition suggested that it should be “close” and “constant”; notwithstanding what the hon. Lady has said, we still believe that that formula is unworkable in practice.
	When the Bill left this House, it already made provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the meaning of “day to day supervision”. Amendments 30 and 31 require the level of supervision to be reasonable in all the circumstances for protecting children. That qualitative threshold, coupled with the statutory guidance, will assist employers and voluntary organisations in making appropriate judgments as to which of their supervised staff or volunteers fall within or outside the scope of regulated activity. The hon. Lady’s amendments to Lords amendments 30 and 31 would remove the definition of “day to day supervision” in clause 64 and replace it with:
	“constant monitoring by an individual engaged in a regulated activity who is on the same site and able to maintain close visual and audio contact with the individual who is under supervision.”
	Such constant monitoring is, in our judgment, likely to be impossible in practice. A trip away from a classroom, perhaps for a comfort break or something like that, would be enough to cause someone to fall foul of the amendments. The effect of the amendments would be to reinstate all supervised people within regulated activity.
	I appreciate that this is a point of difference between us, and I know that the hon. Lady has considered the issue carefully, but as we have said, we believe that although it is right that all paid staff and unsupervised volunteers in specified places such as schools, and unsupervised staff in other places who carry out activities such as teaching and training, should be within regulated activity, it is not proportionate to include other staff in
	those areas within regulated activity. Lords amendments 30 and 31 make it clear that the test of supervision is whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for child protection, so if supervision is not reasonable, the person falls within regulated activity, but if it is reasonable, there is no need for them to do so. Our judgment is that that is right, in order to empower employers to make decisions, to reduce unnecessary burdens on employers, and to remove barriers to volunteering. If a grandparent whom a head teacher has known for years wants to help out with reading at their local school, why should the head teacher have to check their barred status, if he or she knows that they present no risk?
	However, I repeat the assurances given by my ministerial colleague, Lord Henley in another place: supervised people who work regularly and closely with children will remain eligible for enhanced criminal record certificates, and our guidance on supervision will make it clear that it is best practice to request such a certificate when employees or volunteers are unknown to the organisation, or if checks are needed for new posts or staff moves.
	It might make sense for me to talk about the Opposition’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 48, because there is a strong link between that amendment and their amendments to Lords amendments 30 and 31. The effect of the amendment to Lords amendment 48 would be that the definition of “conviction” in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 included a person’s inclusion on an ISA barred list. I presume that the intention is that the information should then be included on criminal record certificates.
	We have debated the issue of barred list information before. The Government do not think it right to include barred list information on enhanced criminal record certificates, except for posts falling within regulated activity, and a few compelling exceptions, such as when people are applying to foster or adopt a child.
	Employers in regulated activity must know about a bar because of its legal effect; otherwise, there is no need to know because it relates to a different area of work and in practice would lead to individuals being excluded from areas of work to which their bar does not apply. In most cases, the information which led to the bar will be available on an enhanced criminal record certificate. When it is not, as Lord Henley also confirmed last week in another place, we will use secondary legislation to allow the ISA to give the police the information which led to a bar so that they can disclose it on an enhanced certificate, if it is relevant to the post applied for.
	Bars may apply, for example, because there is a criminal conviction, but equally a bar may apply because someone has been dismissed by their employer in respect of a particular case. In those circumstances the ISA would be able to give the police the relevant information. The police would then be able to determine, through an enhanced check, whether its disclosure was appropriate. We think that that provides an important safeguard.

Diana Johnson: With the experts at the ISA making a judgment about whether someone should have barred status, why is another layer of bureaucracy introduced by giving that information to the police to allow them to make a further judgment about whether that should be disclosed to a school, for example? Why do we not trust the ISA to make the right decision and disclose that?

James Brokenshire: This is where we differ on the appropriate way to treat the bar. We believe that if there are circumstances which would otherwise not necessarily have been disclosed for the ISA to make that judgment, it is appropriate to allow that information to be disclosed to the police and for the police to consider the application that they have received on an enhanced check and to judge whether the disclosure of those facts and circumstances is right in that case.
	I appreciate that a difference exists between us. We do not see that as bureaucratic. It is about respecting the purpose of the bar and ensuring that on an enhanced check, if the ISA holds relevant information, it can be provided to the police. We have made that clear through our assurances in another place. I hope that that gives greater reassurance on a matter about which I know the hon. Lady feels strongly.

Meg Munn: I am concerned that the measure is becoming bureaucratic. We know that when systems are not clear, there is a greater likelihood that people will not follow them properly. Although the Minister may be certain in his own mind that the theoretical operation of the process is justified, is he equally certain that it will be operated in a way that does not allow information that should be shared to fall through the gaps?

James Brokenshire: We intend that the ISA should provide that information to the police, as I explained. We will be very focused on the way in which the measure is implemented to ensure that that reflects our intentions and that the police have the relevant information for an enhanced check. I recognise that there is a potential point of difference between us on this, but I hope I have explained some of the additional safeguards that we are putting in place.
	From what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, I do not think the other amendments are contentious. Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 77 would make it clear that the new duty on the ISA—and, in future, the disclosure and barring service—to pass barring information to the police will include passing the whole of the children’s and adults’ barred lists, as well as information about a particular person. This will ensure that the police can obtain real-time access to barring information for safeguarding purposes.
	Amendment 40 to clause 79 would make changes to the proposed arrangements for the issue of a single criminal record certificate under that clause. Amendment 40 provides a facility for the Secretary of State to send to a registered body a copy of a criminal record certificate only where the registered body uses the new updating service, as introduced by clause 82, and is informed that a new certificate should be applied for—in other words, that there has been new information since the most recent certificate. If, once that new certificate has been sought, the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent it a copy of the new certificate within a prescribed period and requests a copy of the new certificate, the Secretary of State must comply with that request.
	However, a copy of the certificate will not be sent if prescribed circumstances apply. Principally, these will be when the individual has challenged the information on the new certificate. This change will be particularly
	relevant to large organisations that consider certificates centrally, which will be able to advise their local branches of any issues arising.
	Amendment 41 would insert a new clause into the Bill which will strengthen the current powers of the Criminal Records Bureau to refuse to register an individual or organisation as a registered body. Amendment 48 inserts a new clause that will ensure that cautions, reprimands and warnings are recorded on the police national computer in exactly the same way as convictions.
	I will deal briefly with the amendments to part 7. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will no doubt wish to speak to her amendments. The House will be aware of the important issue of human trafficking and what the Government are doing to tackle it. We believe that the EU directive on human trafficking, which the UK opted into last October, sends a strong message that we are not a soft target for those looking to exploit others. Amendments 49 and 50 insert two new clauses into the Bill which will broaden the scope of our current human trafficking offences to cover the points in the directive with which this country was not previously compliant.
	The first new clause relates to trafficking offences for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 already make it an offence to traffic a person into, within and out of the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. In the interests of clarity, the amendment consolidates these existing trafficking offences into one new section 59A and adds the necessary additional provisions to criminalise trafficking by a UK national, regardless of where the arrangement or facilitation of the trafficking takes place and regardless of where in the world the trafficking occurs or is intended to occur.
	The second new clause relates to trafficking offences for the purpose of labour or other exploitation, and makes equivalent changes to the first clause by criminalising trafficking by a UK national that takes place anywhere in the world. In addition, it removes the requirement for a belief that the trafficking victim may previously have been trafficked into the UK in the first place, thus making trafficking for labour or other exploitation taking place wholly within the UK an offence. This brings the offence into line with sex trafficking offences and ensures compliance with the requirements of the directive. The Government consider that the amendments to parts 5 and 7 have improved the Bill, but I will listen carefully to what the hon. Lady says in respect of her amendments on human trafficking, a subject in which I know she has long taken a close interest. With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to any points that she may raise.

Fiona Mactaggart: That was a very nice introduction from the Minister. I know that he is standing in for one of his colleagues, which is always challenging. In my two proposals which have won support from Members on both sides of the House, although owing to shortness of time only the names of Opposition Members appear on the amendment paper, I seek to ensure that we achieve the whole ambition set out by the Minister—conformity with the European convention and the European directive.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 49 would establish a rapporteur on human trafficking, as is explicitly required by the European directive. The argument for that was
	best made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in a debate in Westminster Hall, when he pointed out:
	“One of the problems surrounding human trafficking is the lack of reliable information and data analysis permitting us to assess the scope of the problem in our country. The solution in the UK to that challenge is to establish an independent national rapporteur.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 135WH.]
	Indeed, the Council of Europe convention and the EU directive are explicit on that point, requiring member states to appoint national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms to assess trends in human trafficking, monitor and measure the anti-trafficking activities of state institutions, gather statistics and report on their findings.
	The usual response from Ministers is that the interdepartmental ministerial group on trafficking performs the role of a rapporteur, but that is not true. I used to be a member of the interdepartmental ministerial group, which in those days had better attendance than it has had recently. The body meets twice a year, and more Ministers send apologies than turn up. It does not have the one requirement of a rapporteur, which is to be independent of the Government, that it needs to be properly effective. The group has to provide information independently to Parliament, but it does not report to it. It needs to be able objectively to assess and report on the activities of the Government. The job of Ministers is not objectively to assess the Government, but to progress with the business of Government. Therefore, I think that there was a failure to include that requirement in the two welcome amendments tabled in the other place.
	The other amendment I have tabled, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 50, would provide for a dedicated advocate for trafficked children, which is another requirement of the Council of Europe convention and another matter that has secured all-party backing. The amendment is modelled on one that was tabled in another place by Lord McColl, a Government Back Bencher, and supported by Cross-Bench and Conservative peers and the Archbishop of York—it had the broadest possible support. My amendment would put into effect the clear requirement in the directive and the convention that children who have been trafficked should be protected by a guardian. Lord McColl withdrew his amendment following a promise from Lord Henley, who said at the beginning of the debate that he would ask the Children’s Commissioner for England
	“to review the current practical arrangements for rescued child victims of trafficking”.
	He went on to say that following that review the Government would
	“be in a position to come back to these matters at a later stage.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 848.]
	I gather from the Children Commissioner’s public remarks that she is concerned about some of these policies. She said:
	“A request to review care has not yet been made.”
	I expect that a request has since been made. She continued:
	“However, if this was received we would give it due consideration, and as a small organisation would seek assurances regarding the independence of our work and the resources that would enable us to undertake this work.”
	I gather that, within the commission, one member of staff deals with child protection issues and another deals with refugee and asylum issues, so I think there is a real risk that the responsibility Lord Henley has given the organisation is simply beyond its capacity. The Children’s Commissioner is conducting an important inquiry into the sexual exploitation of children in gangs. It is an inquiry that I absolutely support and think is essential, and she is uncovering genuinely shocking information that we all want to know about and that we want the Government to know about and to act on. However, the fact that she is conducting that inquiry will make it really difficult for her to deliver on the pledge that Lord Henley made.
	I would be happy not to press my amendment if the Minister gave the House an explicit assurance that he will ensure that the Children’s Commissioner has sufficient expert resources to conduct that inquiry before the end of 2012. If he gave that assurance, I would follow the lead of their lordships by not pressing the amendment to a vote, because I accept that Lord Henley was seeking to recognise the importance of the commitment and to meet the concern of their lordships, felt universally across the Chamber, about protecting victims of child trafficking.
	Let us be clear that the problem with trafficked children is that, even when they are taken into the care of local authorities, they disappear. Government statistics suggest that the number of trafficked children who disappear has fallen from 30% to 20% but, as the number who have been found is slightly smaller than it used to be, I am not sure that we can be utterly confident in those statistics. In any case, if we are saying that one in five children in the care of local authorities disappears, we seem to have a situation that is absolutely intolerable to Members on both sides of the House.
	Let us look at the legal case of one of the few child traffickers who have been convicted, Kennedy Johnson, who brought 49 Nigerian children through British airports, mainly Heathrow and Gatwick. He then targeted council care homes, which he told the trafficked children to get into. He picked girls from the care homes and pushed them into the sex trade in Britain, but also in Spain and Italy. His victims kept appearing for years after he was jailed. Barnardo’s has revealed that when some children who had been trafficked into Britain, not through airports but by people smugglers, jumped out of a lorry, they were put in supported lodgings but went missing within 24 hours. Another three children who were put into foster care vanished after several weeks. Of those disappeared children, only one has been found. The rest of them will have been prostituted, after having been taken into care in our name.
	I believe that providing guardianship could more effectively protect those children. They have social workers at the moment, but that is not protecting them. Every child in care I speak with says that the problem with their social workers is that they change and do not continue. As was made clear in the amendment in the House of Lords, the proposed advocates would not have to be professional employees of local government or any other body; they could be trained volunteers or employees of charities and voluntary organisations. Children who have been victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation must have someone who is on their side.
	I really hope that the Minister can give me the commitment I have requested, which is that the Children’s Commissioner will be able to conduct that work before
	the end of the year and that the Government will then bring forward proposals to ensure that her recommendations are put into force. That would mean that the only amendment I would have to push would be the one proposing a rapporteur on human trafficking. The interdepartmental ministerial group is a useful tool, but unfortunately few Ministers attend and no Ministers report to Parliament. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wellingborough is in his place, as he is one of the Members who have advocated this most powerfully.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, much of which I agree with. On her point about a rapporteur, I pressed for that in a Westminster Hall debate and, although we did not get the full rapporteur, the Government assured us that we would have an annual report and that it would be debated. I would like the Minister to confirm that. Otherwise, I will join the hon. Lady in the Division Lobby tonight.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that implied threat, which is at the moment rather more effective coming from his direction than from mine, but nevertheless there is support for the concept on both sides of the House. I know that the Minister is stepping into another Minister’s shoes, and I will keep talking so that he can get that note from his officials, but I believe that if we had an independent rapporteur, we could ensure that our debates about the extent and impact of human trafficking were more effective.
	My biggest concern, however, is about more effective protection for children, and I really hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that matter.

James Brokenshire: With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to the hon. Lady’s two points about trafficking.
	On the first point, about the requirement for a rapporteur under article 19 of the EU directive, we still take the view that the requirement can be met through the inter-departmental ministerial group, but we recognise that the group needs to be reviewed to ensure that it can perform the rapporteur function effectively, and its next meeting, in April, will do just that.
	It is also important for me to make it clear that the directive does not stipulate that the national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism be independent of government, but the Government fully recognise that in signing up to the EU directive we must comply with the requirements therein.
	In response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I can confirm that it is intended that there will be an annual report on the group’s activities in that regard. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Peter Bone: The Minister has given me half the assurance I sought. The other half was about having not just the report, but having it debated in Parliament.

James Brokenshire: Unfortunately, the second point is outside my gift and within that of the business managers, but I certainly assure my hon. Friend about the publication of the report, and I hope that my comments on the rapporteur function are helpful.
	Secondly, on the hon. Lady’s point about the assurance made by my noble Friend Lord Henley in the other place, the Government intend that we should ask the Children’s Commissioner for England to help to identify where improvements can be made to the practical care arrangements for trafficked children in the way that the hon. Lady highlighted.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Children’s Commissioner. The hon. Lady highlighted the work on sexual exploitation, and I know about the very important review that the commissioner is undertaking. I had the privilege to discuss the issue with her at the start of her report, when I had ministerial responsibility for policy on the sexual exploitation of children, and I for one underline her comments on what I am sure will be an extremely important and valuable report. In the context of my noble Friend’s assurance in the other place, therefore, what I can say is that the issue is being considered extremely carefully, and discussions are under way on the scope and time scale of the review, but at this stage I am unable to give the hon. Lady the complete assurance that she looks for in the second of her two amendments. The matter is being looked at extremely carefully and closely in order to give effect to the statements that my noble Friend made in recognising the importance that we attach to receiving such input from the Children’s Commissioner.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s excellent point about the appointment of guardians? It was an excellent point that reflects the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee when we produced our major report two years ago on human trafficking. The appointment of a guardian would provide the best possible protection for such children in care.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and for the reason he cites we asked the Children’s Commissioner to review the practical care arrangements for trafficked children. We said that the right step at this stage was to seek that input, rather than to seek to legislate, recognising equally that several local authorities are already undertaking some very good practice.
	I recognise that, in respect of the hon. Lady’s amendments, that might not be sufficient, but it was important that I respond and set out those points to the House this evening.

Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 30 be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 207, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendments 31 to 50, 53 to 58, 60 to 67, 69 to 132 and 134 to 145 agreed to.

Lindsay Hoyle: I should inform the House that Lords amendment 145 should refer to line 12 of the title, which is the last but one line.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up the Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 16, 17 and 18;
	That James Brokenshire, James Duddridge, Diana Johnson, Mark Tami and Tom Brake be members of the Committee;
	That James Brokenshire be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee;
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Mr Dunne.)
	Question agreed  to .
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

National Policy Statement (Waste Water)

[Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the Draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water, HC 736, and the Government’s response thereto (The Government Response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, which was laid before this House on 9 February).]

Richard Benyon: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Waste Water, which was laid before this House on 9 February.
	The waste water national policy statement sets out Government policy for the provision of waste water infrastructure of national significance in England. It will be used from this April by the Planning Inspectorate, as the examining body, and by the Secretary of State, as the decision maker, as the primary basis for making decisions on development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
	Consultation on the waste water national policy statement took place between November 2010 and February 2011. At the same time, it was subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs undertook scrutiny for the House by holding oral hearings and taking written evidence. It published a report of its findings in April 2011, with 19 recommendations and conclusions, to which the Government responded in February 2012.
	I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Select Committee, nobly and expertly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for its hard work and for its determination to get to grips with a subject area that was new to some Committee members and, at the time when I gave evidence, relatively new to me. I am grateful to the Committee for scrutinising the national policy statement in a relatively short period. I hope that it can see that its contribution has helped to refine and improve the document before the House.

Andy Slaughter: The Minister is being his usual modest self in saying that he was not au fait with the subject. He is now up to his knees, if not his waist, in the subject, having dealt with the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill last week and in introducing this debate. I believe that the Select Committee had some doubt about major projects being included in the NPS. For the avoidance of doubt, are the Government unshaken in their view that projects such as the Thames tunnel and Deephams sewage works should be included in the NPS? Whatever the final decision on the route and the detail, it is important to be clear—[ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will make the judgments about the length of interventions, thank you. We want short interventions. I presume that the hon. Gentleman has got to the end of his.

Richard Benyon: I think I got the gist of it. I will come on to cover the key points that were made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and
	to explain what the waste water national policy statement is. I think that I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I am happy to let him intervene again.
	In laying the waste water national policy statement before the House for approval and in having this debate, we are meeting a Government commitment to mirror the new requirements of the Planning Act 2008 that will be brought into effect next month under the Localism Act 2011. Those procedures are intended to make national policy statements more democratically accountable to Parliament.
	The Government are committed to making the planning system more open, transparent and fast, and to ensuring that all those who want to get involved in the process can do so, whether it relates to an application to extend a property or to a project of national significance, such as the Thames tunnel. The abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission brings democratic accountability back into the determination of nationally significant infrastructure projects by giving decision-making powers back to Ministers, who are answerable to Parliament. Ministers will also have regard to recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate.
	National policy statements are a key component of a more open and accountable planning system. They will set out Government policy clearly on particular types of infrastructure of national significance, having been subject in draft form to both formal consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. National policy statements provide a framework for preparing, considering and deciding development consent applications. This national policy statement is therefore primarily for planning purposes and does not claim to be a complete statement of Government policy on waste water.
	Effective waste water infrastructure is vital, because without suitable treatment, the waste water we produce every day would damage the water environment and create problems for public health, water resources and wildlife. The proper collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, and the correct disposal of the resulting sludge, helps to protect, maintain and improve water quality in the UK.
	The criterion that we have used in the national policy statement for the demonstration of the need for nationally significant infrastructure projects is that the projects have been included in the Environment Agency’s national environment programme. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that that issue needed to be clarified and I believe that our approach now addresses its concerns.
	In addition to establishing the need for waste water infrastructure, our national policy statement sets out impacts that will be relevant for any waste water infrastructure, including details on mitigating adverse impacts. Those are issues that the Planning Inspectorate and Ministers will have to have regard to when examining and determining applications.
	The national policy statement does not describe how any waste water projects of national significance should be developed. I think that this addresses in part the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). How such projects are developed is up to the project promoter before they place an application for development consent, which from April this year will go to the Planning Inspectorate.
	The waste water national policy statement details two proposed projects of national significance: the sewage treatment works scheme at Deephams in north-east London and the Thames tunnel. The justification for both developments and the consideration of alternatives to the Thames tunnel are fully explained in the document.
	Currently, only the proposed upgrade of the Deephams sewage treatment works can be considered a potential nationally significant infrastructure project, as it meets the criteria in the Planning Act 2008 for waste water treatment facilities serving a population equivalent of 500,000 people. We will shortly lay a draft order before Parliament for its approval, to amend section 14 of that Act to enable a waste water transfer and storage project such as the Thames tunnel to be classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
	London’s sewerage is under considerable pressure, due to a system that is close to capacity, changing land use in London and population expansion. That leads to frequent spills of untreated waste water containing sewage into the tidal reaches of the Thames, which has a negative impact on its water quality. Resolving that problem has been the subject of extensive and comprehensive studies, including the consideration of a wide range of alternative solutions, for more than a decade. As a result, the Government are satisfied that the development of the Thames tunnel, when compared with the alternatives, is the most cost-effective and timely solution to the problem of untreated sewage discharging into the River Thames. That is demonstrated in the waste water national policy statement.

Simon Hughes: One of the arguments that the Minister has just made is that the proposed tunnel is the most cost-effective way of dealing with the problems in the Thames. Can he point me to any cost-benefit analysis that has happened in the last couple of years, since the initial study was made in 2006 and since the cost of the project has risen from £1.7 billion or thereabouts to £4.1 billion?

Richard Benyon: Like my right hon. Friend, I am concerned about the cost of the project. That is why my Department has instructed Ernst and Young to advise it in detail on the cost-benefit analyses that have been carried out to date, recognising, of course, that not far off a quarter of the estimated price is a contingency. It is important that throughout the process we are open about the figures that are arrived at. These matters concern not just his constituents and those of other London Members but 144 Members whose constituents pay Thames Water bills, of whom I am one.
	I can assure my right hon. Friend that, as I said in last week’s debate, Ministers remain healthily sceptical about the cost of the project. We want to ensure that it provides value for money, and I am happy to tell him that cost-benefit analysis will be an ongoing process. I assure him that the alternatives that we have examined, which may be more attractive on the face of it, such as retrofitting sustainable urban drainage systems across London or separating clean water from dirty, cannot compare favourably with the cost of the tunnel. Indeed, one of the options that I have seen would come in at somewhere between three and four times the cost
	of the Thames tunnel scheme. I take the matter very seriously and will be happy to keep him informed of our progress.

Andrew Love: One concern about both the development at Deephams and the Thames tunnel is the role of Ofwat. There is concern that Ofwat’s attention may be somewhat too concentrated on the Thames tunnel, for all the good reasons that we have discussed, and that it may not give sufficient priority to Deephams. Can the Minister reassure us that that will not be allowed to happen?

Richard Benyon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is a matter of great importance to Ofwat. It has agreed funding to progress the Deephams upgrade, which will increase treatment capacity to accommodate the expected growth. I am convinced that Ofwat is taking the project seriously, but I am happy to write to him with more details. I think it would strenuously deny that it is looking myopically at the Thames tunnel, to the exclusion of Deephams. Of course, it is perfectly in order for him to contact Ofwat, because it is the independent economic regulator of these matters.
	We made statements to the House about the Thames tunnel in November 2011, accompanied by documents setting out what we believe is the irrefutable case that it is the correct scheme for our capital city. To address the hon. Gentleman’s concern, I point out that although improvements to the Deephams sewage treatment works may have received less public attention over the years, they are on a large scale. The current site covers about 30 hectares and is the ninth largest sewage treatment works in England.
	The improvements are essential to ensure that environmental quality standards in the waterways into which the treatment works discharge meet European and national standards. As the developer, Thames Water, is still evaluating the site and treatment options prior to selecting a preferred option for development, the waste water national policy statement does not consider alternative options. It will be for Thames Water to justify its preferred option in its development consent application.
	The national policy statement, as with planning policy documents in general, does not prescribe the use of specific technologies. That is to ensure that developers are not fettered by the Government from taking account of future technological advancements. It is up to the developer to justify in its application its preferred treatment option, including any options it has considered and ruled out.
	Although the national policy statement details two potential nationally significant infrastructure projects, may I stress that we are not here to debate how those schemes may be delivered? Our purpose is to discuss whether the national policy statement fulfils its requirements under the 2008 Act, and therefore whether it is fit for purpose. Designation of this national policy statement is not the last opportunity for people to have their say on development consent applications for waste water infrastructure of national importance. Developers must consult local communities before submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, and people will have the chance to have their say during the examination by registering and making representations to the Planning Inspectorate.
	The waste water national policy statement is critical in helping to deliver important infrastructure developments and in ensuring that the right framework is used in the consideration of development consent applications. I strongly believe that the waste water national policy statement provides robust justification for the new infrastructure proposed. I welcome the debate and look forward to responding, with the leave of the House, to the points raised in it.

Gavin Shuker: I note that debates in the House on waste water are rather like the No. 159 bus that serves the House—you wait for ever for one, then two come along at once. However, I welcome this debate on the national policy statement, as well as the statement itself.
	Much of the interest in the debate will be generated by specific nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as Deephams, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), and the Thames tunnel. Labour supports the Thames tunnel project. In government, we foresaw the need for the tunnel and established both the commission and the enabling legislation.
	London’s sewers carry both raw sewage and rain water and were designed for 4 million inhabitants. There are now 8 million inhabitants, meaning that even small amounts of rain can cause massive amounts of untreated sewage to be discharged into the Thames. That happens once a week on average, and it kills wildlife, damages the health of river users and will in time trigger significant daily fines from the European Commission. We must comply with the urban waste water treatment directive. The project tackles that by collecting the overflow in a giant tunnel bored below London and processing the waste in Beckton sewage works. That should mean that discharges occur only a few times a year, and that they are much less harmful.
	Projected costs have risen, however, and time scales have begun to stretch. The Government need to show leadership and make a clear commitment to the project to ensure that the right vehicle for managing and delivering it is put in place. We remain unconvinced by alternative solutions to the problems of London’s sewage discharge, many of which, sadly, are more about local politics than about long-term planning. The consultation process is vital to ensuring that sites are placed correctly and properly integrated into the environment. MPs will rightly want to represent the views of their local communities in that process.
	There are several hurdles to clear, not least the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has an effective veto over the tunnel. The support of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alone will be insufficient. Last week in the House, I questioned the Minister on the nature of the decision-making process. I expressed concern that the joint decision-making process was an administrative one and not a legal one, and asked for clarification. He replied:
	“The Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government will jointly take decisions on water and waste water applications. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will take the lead on considering the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendations. My officials are due to meet his officials shortly to agree the process”.—[Official Report, 12 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 318.]
	Despite the Minister’s assurances, this evening’s debate is the last opportunity for Parliament to express its view of the appropriateness of the Thames tunnel project, so let me put it on the record that I am disappointed that the decision-making process giving the green light to the tunnel is yet to be decided, and that it will not be decided before Parliament has exhausted its scrutiny of whether the Government should be given the green light to go ahead. As we have seen recently in the internal divisions over planning reform and weekly bin collections, every time the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs goes head to head with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, it comes off worse.
	In 2001, the independent Thames tideway strategic study was set up to consider the problem of London’s excessive sewage discharge and to come up with a solution. In 2005, the study concluded that improvements to existing treatment works and a tunnel to intercept the combined sewage overflows were the best solution. In 2007, we determined that it was appropriate for Thames Water to make provision for the design, construction and maintenance of such a scheme; and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 provided for infrastructure regulation to create the framework for the tendering, designation and building of such a project.
	In addition to the primary environmental benefits of the Thames tunnel, we saw it as an opportunity to create more than 4,000 direct jobs, expand apprenticeships and regenerate London. Tory-led Hammersmith and Fulham council has co-ordinated much of the opposition to the Thames tunnel plans. Most recently, it established a commission with four other councils to examine the project. Essentially, it proposed a combination of a much shorter tunnel, building more local sewage works, greater separation of foul sewage and rain water, and the installation of sustainable urban drainage.
	Some of those would be welcome complementary projects, but we agree with the Government that pursuing the alternative route is a distraction that could cause far greater disruption and costs, and ultimately prove to be ineffectual. Supporters of the alternative approach would have preferred to fight the battle over whether the tunnel should be built at all, and with the commencement of the next-stage consultation, the passing of last week’s Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill and tonight’s national policy statement debate, attention should now be focused on getting the specifics right: route and site selection, the delivery vehicle and the finances.
	I want to touch briefly on Deephams, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton. I have taken a particular interest in this project because treated effluent from Deephams discharges into Salmon’s brook, a tributary of the River Lee, whose source, as we all know, is the picturesque hamlet of Luton. Again, we accept the need for this upgrade work to go ahead. Deephams serves nearly 1 million residents and is already undergoing a £50 million programme of improvement works to deal with excess storm water inflows. Nevertheless, improving water quality and expanding capacity to meet the needs of a growing population will require further work.
	The Government should express their view on whether it is better to rebuild the plant in the existing urban area, as congested as it is, than to rebuild on a new site. We know that if relocation is the preferred option,
	effluent will need to be moved from the existing site footprint for cleaning and then returned for discharge. I therefore welcome what I understand to be the Minister’s intention to designate Deephams as a nationally significant infrastructure project, as the Thames tunnel was late last year. That is what I understood him to say, but I am sure that he will be able to clarify when he sums up.
	The process that we initiated in government of introducing national policy statements in draft form, with the intention that they be scrutinised by the relevant Select Committees and the public is, I believe, showing dividends. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—I note that we are increasingly in agreement on such matters—for her work chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and for the recommendations of her Committee. I give the Government credit for incorporating many of those recommendations into the final document.
	We completely agree with the Committee’s view that greater attention should be given to sustainable drainage systems as measures complementary to large infrastructure projects. In the case of the Thames tunnel, this can help to ensure that the effectiveness of the tunnel is not reduced with climate change and that we do not end up in 50 to 100 years’ time having to construct a second tunnel.
	Measures to reduce the amount of water passing through drains and into the Thames can be implemented at neighbourhood or district level. We encourage councils across London not only to provide information and education on reducing water consumption through rain water harvesting and water recycling, but to lead by example. Education should focus on encouraging people to “wetrofit” their homes, with fittings such as low or dual-flush toilets, water-efficient shower heads and tap flow regulators. Introducing grey water recycling in new-build properties and renovations could allow bath and basin water to be cleaned and reused. External features for rain water harvesting should also play an essential role.
	The Government have had much to say about their green deal programme at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but little assistance is being extended to householders looking to purchase green roofs, water butts or downspouts to collect rain water that otherwise would go into our sewers, even though the advantages are obvious, with residents enjoying a notable reduction in their water bills and the sewerage system having to manage a lower volume of waste water. Over time, local authorities and the Highways Agency should replace hard, non-permeable surfaces with porous materials on pavements and public footpaths; home owners, too, should be encouraged to consider such measures. I do not underestimate the challenge that SUDS present to the status quo. Every year in London alone some 3,000 hectares of private domestic gardens are paved over—the equivalent of 2.5 Hyde parks. Such complementary measures should be part of a rolling programme, and we will return to them in the comprehensive water Bill, a draft of which the Minister promises in the forthcoming Session of Parliament.
	On the wider objectives of the national policy statement, we welcome the commitment to sustainable development. Infrastructure should help us to live within
	strong environmental limits and to have due regard to environmental, social and economic considerations. However, may I press the Minister to clarify which definition of “sustainable development” he intends to use in this version of the national policy statement?

Andy Slaughter: I wonder whether I might put to my hon. Friend the question I put to the Minister, but did not get an answer to—although perhaps the Minister, who I think agrees with the position I described, might deal with it when summing up. This is something of a hybrid NPS, because although it deals with the general principles, as my hon. Friend says, it also deals with specific projects. Is it his view—as I think it is the Minister’s—that it is appropriate to have major projects such as the Thames tunnel in addition to general principles in the NPS?

Gavin Shuker: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is appropriate to recognise major, nationally significant infrastructure proposals in the draft of the document. It is important to note that the document will be revised over a cycle of every five or so years, and rightly so. It is also important to note that the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rightly proposed an additional appendix referring specifically to the two nationally significant infrastructure proposals in the document, for greater clarity and to ensure that that can be addressed appropriately by Ministers. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and I am sure that the Minister will clarify the position in due course.
	Returning to the broader themes of the policy statement, on public health and environmental improvement, we continue to support efforts to comply with the urban waste water treatment directive, and we appreciate how this is reflected in the policy statement. Improving water quality in the natural environment and meeting our international obligations are, of course, essential. In that vein, I am a little disappointed that there was not more in the water White Paper on the quality of water and waste water. We know that major projects will need to go ahead—not least the two that I have already mentioned—to achieve that objective, and I am assured that the objective in the NPS will be sufficient to ensure that those projects go ahead.
	According to the waste water policy statement, reducing water consumption is another of the Government’s key objectives and a major part of their plan. We know about the benefits of reducing water consumption, and not just for water treatment. Much of England will be subject to water restrictions from 5 April, as drought conditions develop. Although we agree on the importance of the long-term reforms envisaged in the water White Paper—competition for non-household customers to drive water efficiency innovation—we are worried by the lack of deep thought on how to reduce per capita water usage.
	In some parts of the advanced world, individual residents get by on just 75 litres per day, but in the UK, household water consumption has grown since the 1950s to around 150 litres per person per day. There is also still significant variation between different water companies. We therefore call for more action, including the publishing of the so-called missing chapter of the water White Paper, to ensure that water efficiency measures are taken seriously and that Government actions and
	programmes best reflect the guidance, so that not everyone is subject to restrictions on water use when there is enough water to go round in some regions.
	On climate change mitigation and adaptation, we know that climate change will require some of our water treatment systems to take far greater volumes of waste and storm water, as well as require our water industry to reduce its emissions. By 2050, the industry—which already accounts for about 2% of our nation’s carbon footprint—will need to have contributed significantly to the 80% reduction in emissions required by the Climate Change Act 2008. At present, there is a tension between higher standards for waste water, often requiring higher levels of energy consumption, and the requirement to reduce the draw on our national grid. There is plenty of space for innovation, and a need for far more research on efficiency and devising new processes for raising standards of waste water. To help with this, we call on the Government to publish a road map, as they have with the motor industry, to sketch out a path to a low-carbon waste water industry.
	The principle of the waste hierarchy should of course apply to any project under the national policy statement; the document refers to that directly. In that regard, more could be done to encourage new processes that harness the organic value of effluent. Will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with his counterparts at the Department of Energy and Climate Change and at Ofwat to ensure that the energy recovery process is maximised through the implementation of this document? We welcome this national policy statement, and we will not oppose the motion tonight.

Anne McIntosh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). I, too, welcome the debate this evening and the waste water national policy statement. In these debates, I feel as though I have died and gone to heaven when the Minister and the Opposition spokesman both say what a good piece of work the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has done. It was a privilege to carry out such a substantial body of work on the national policy statement, and we took our responsibilities seriously. I am grateful to the Committee, to those who advised us and to those who gave evidence.
	I shall give the House some background information. In April 2011, the Committee published the report on our inquiry into the Department’s draft waste water national policy statement, in which we made a number of recommendations for what we viewed as the improvement of the NPS. Some time later, on 9 February this year, the Government published their response to the Committee’s report and laid a revised version of the NPS before the House. I am delighted that the Government have been able to find time for this debate tonight.
	The hon. Member for Luton South mentioned the fact that we had to comply with, among other things, the European urban waste water treatment directive. May I just say, as a personal comment, that I hope that we can learn from this whole exercise—and from the essence of the Macdonald review of regulations from Europe—and that we must engage at the earliest possible stage and in the most constructive, positive manner? It will be a great step forward if we can learn from this exercise.
	As the Minister said earlier, the national policy statement is critical to the new planning system. It will help developers to bring forward waste water projects of national significance without facing unnecessary delays, while ensuring that local people have an opportunity to have their say about how their communities are developed and about how the decisions are made in an accountable way by elected Ministers.
	Following on from the Minister’s comments, I would be interested to know whether at this stage he has had sight of the final version of the national planning policy framework, which I understand may be revealed to the world at large later this week. Is he in a position to tell us this evening, given that this issue was raised in our evidence sessions, what the impact will be on the waste water national policy statement and the two projects falling under it?
	The Minister referred to the application for planning consents. He may be interested to know that some time, regrettably, after we had taken evidence and reported, we were still receiving representations from those who had not realised that the scrutiny was taking place in the EFRA Committee. The matter of how to bring such scrutiny to the attention of the wider community is important if this were to arise again, as I understand it might if the Minister proceeds with his review. I shall return to that later.
	The Committee was pleased to have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft water national policy statement last year, and we welcome the Government’s response. Although, as I alluded, it took the Department some time to publish the revised version, we were pleased that the time was used well to improve the national policy statement by incorporating many of our recommended changes. We believe that the now revised PPS broadly does a good job in setting out the framework for decision makers. Given the importance of the issue, however, we welcome the Government’s debate on it today.
	Many other hon. Members will have issues to raise, particularly those whose constituencies are in the catchment area for the billing of the project, such as my hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps also those whose constituencies lie along its route. I shall focus my remarks both on areas where the Government have incorporated our comments and on those where they did not.
	The Government’s response sets out a number of areas in respect of which DEFRA has accepted the recommendations in the Committee’s report and amended the NPS consequentially. On the definition of need, I welcome the fact that in the revised NPS, the inclusion of a project in Ofwat’s asset management plan has been removed, in line with the Committee’s recommendation, as a criterion of proof of a project’s need. It was not logical to use that as a basis of proof, because its inclusion did not in itself mean that Ofwat had approved the individual plan for how it should be carried out. Indeed, Ofwat’s evidence on how it would review and consider each plan was quite compelling, so the removal of the asset management plan is a sensible approach, with retention of inclusion in the Environment Agency’s national environment plan as proof of a project’s need providing a workable criterion. I thus welcome the Minister’s comments this evening.
	Some of the site-specific material in the NPS has been moved to an annexe, which is part of the document that is not to be relied on by the decision maker in
	reaching a decision on a project. That meets to some extent the Committee’s criticism about the inclusion of weak material on the Thames tunnel and Deephams Sewage Treatment Works in the main NPS. In our view, the remaining site-specific sections have been improved, and the Committee welcomes these amendments because the focus of the NPS should be on establishing generic criteria that are applicable to any project falling within the threshold of a nationally significant infrastructure project set out in the Planning Act 2008, as amended.
	As regards the inclusion of the Thames tunnel in the nationally significant infrastructure project planning regime, may I say that the Government have also moved to change the Planning Act definitions, as recommended by the Committee, to include sewage transfers and storage projects such as the Thames tunnel within the process for deciding applications of nationally significant infrastructure projects? We welcome that move, which is in the intended spirit of the Planning Act regime and reflects the inclusion of the Thames tunnel in the Government’s major infrastructure plans. The inclusion of sewage transfer and storage projects of a significant size, such as the Thames tunnel project, is clearly both logical and pragmatic.
	Recommendation 9 deals with the approval of costs. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) mentioned the importance of keeping the costs of the Thames tunnel under scrutiny, and it is vital for Ofwat to be rigorous in scrutinising those costs, which, according to the evidence given to our Committee, are escalating. The Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, which we debated last week, contains necessary provisions enabling Thames Water to ensure that it can finance the project in the most cost-effective manner, but I should welcome an assurance from the Minister about the intended use of those powers, and a reassurance for Thames Water customers that the costs will not continue to increase. It would be helpful if he also told us how Ofwat has strengthened its in-house capacity to focus on the Thames tunnel, and what advice the company is receiving on how to limit the cost of the projects referred to in the Government’s response to our report.
	I am sure that Members will not be disappointed if I now turn to my personal pet subject, sustainable drainage. In recommendation 6, we
	“recommend that Defra undertakes within 12 months a full assessment of the potential national impact of widespread adoption of SUDs”
	—sustainable drainage systems—
	“and water efficiency programmes for existing as well as new housing stock on future waste water infrastructure needs and that this be taken into account in any future revisions of the Waste Water NPS.”
	I realise that there are a number of strands in DEFRA’s work on sustainable drainage, but it is disappointing that the water White Paper does not focus more on SUDS, and that more progress has not been made towards an agreement on funding for them. According to the Government’s response,
	“The Planning Act allows for the partial or full review of an NPS. We aim to review the Waste Water NPS in five years time”
	—perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is the case—
	“or before that time should there be a significant need to do so.”
	Obviously, my question is “What would constitute a significant need?” The Government’s response continues:
	“This will take account of any changes to appropriate policy since the development of the original Waste Water NPS.”
	I am not disagreeing with the Minister, but we need more information this evening.
	The Government’s response also refers to schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, a large part of which has still to come into effect. They say
	“We intend to implement Schedule 3 as soon as possible and dates are being explored”
	—this is exciting stuff, Mr Deputy Speaker—
	“in the consultation on implementation of Schedule 3 which we launched on 20 December. The Act also requires local authorities to adopt those sustainable drainage systems which serve more than one property. In the short term”
	—it must be quite a short term, Mr Deputy Speaker—
	“Defra will fund the maintenance of adopted sustainable drainage systems whilst we explore long-term funding options.”
	Will the Minister tell us what the procedure and timetable will be for the adoption—finally—of sustainable drainage systems? The last Government could have done that before the general election, but they chose not to. We are now approaching the anniversary of that election, and I think that the House is growing impatient. I certainly am. When will we have the SUDs? They are important. The House wants to be able to establish whether the Government have explored all the alternatives.
	I hope the Minister will respond—in his usual, inimitable, charming way—to the points raised. In respect of the national policy statement, if we are truly signed up to sustainable development, the environment and the needs of local communities must not be sacrificed. The Committee commends the national policy statement and is glad that the Government welcome some of its proposals. However, we are disappointed that they disagree with certain measures.

Andrew Love: I thank the Minister for ensuring that we have this debate, especially as I had begun to lose faith that we would have an opportunity to discuss the national policy statement. Those who were present for the last debate will be unsurprised to learn that I propose to focus my remarks on the Deephams works in my constituency. I welcome the Minister’s comments on Deephams, and I want to press for a little more reassurance.
	Let me give some background on Deephams. The existing infrastructure is exhausted. There has been little investment in recent years, although there is now to be an investment of £50 million, which is very welcome. Deephams is a constrained site, but that was not always the case. Many years ago, when the Lee valley was a leafy area, none of my constituents lived particularly close to Deephams, and most of them barely knew that it was there. In fact, it could be said that they did not really care, but that has changed in the last 10 years.
	Housing now abuts the very edge of Deephams, and there are also adjacent industrial sites. It is now very much part of my constituency. Statutory nuisance is a major, and continuing, issue, and I have had many an argument with both constituents and Thames Water about it. Because some of my constituents now live close to the site, they are very concerned. We must address this issue.
	The national policy statement attempts to provide reassurance. I was disappointed that the Select Committee’s recommendations were not followed, but I understand the reasons for that. I have now been somewhat reassured, and welcome some of the national policy statement recommendations. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, there is no longer a preferred option for redevelopment, so a range of options for Deephams can be considered. That is important. Fresh priority has also been given to design issues. That will be important in the context of Deephams, because of the constrained nature of the site. The Minister mentioned greater flexibility, too. Over the period in question, the number of people that the sludge works will serve will increase from about 800,000 to about 1 million.
	The national policy statement contains comments on infrastructure. It says the infrastructure at Deephams is out of date and needs to be replaced. I want to add to what is contained in the national policy statement, and seek reassurance on two issues: the central role of Ofwat, and how we can best ensure that the fact that the site at Deephams is constrained does not prove to be an insurmountable difficulty.
	First, let me tackle the issue of Ofwat. As everyone in tonight’s debate has recognised, it has a critical role to play in infrastructure investment. However, according to the Government’s water White Paper, Ofwat needs to be more competitive, less bureaucratic and much more flexible in financing infrastructure. Indeed, I understand that that will form a core part of the water Bill that will come before the House in the next Session. That new regime will not come in until after the next general election, but the need to meet EU water improvement standards means that Deephams has to be operational by 2017. So the first issue that I would like the Minister to talk about is: how we can achieve the benefits that the national policy statement mentions—innovation, flexibility and greater freedom in terms of infrastructure investment —from an unreformed Ofwat? What can we do to make sure that Ofwat is adequate for the task?
	The second issue to address is the constrained nature of the Deephams site, and I wish to say three things about that. First, a higher level of water treatment must be achieved in a smaller area, as space is very limited at Deephams. Secondly, it is possible to retrofit the installation of the new facilities into the existing tanks—indeed, new technology is well suited to that retrofit capacity. Thirdly, we must minimise the statutory nuisance to adjoining residents. That is a continuing problem that will not go away, and it needs to be addressed.
	We can best try to answer all three issues in relation to this site by using new technology. Using new technology will give us the additional benefit of future-proofing for likely required improvements in water quality over the extended life of the new Deephams, and it will also help to deal with further population increases—it is suggested that London’s population will increase significantly over the next 25 years—and, of course, climate change. If we are to future-proof for all three of those, technology will be very important. However, it must be tried-and-tested technology, and it must avoid the danger of being out of date even before Deephams is up and running.
	May I conclude my remarks by asking the Minister to give a little further reassurance to my constituents and to the House that the role of Ofwat will enable the recommendations of the national policy statement to
	happen? May I also ask what role new technology will play in achieving our ambitions for Deephams? In such a constrained site, it seems to be the only solution that will be adequate for the task of making Deephams the sort of 21st century facility for which we are all hoping.

Mark Field: I am one of 144 Members of Parliament in the Thames Water area directly affected by the issue of the Thames tunnel, and I hope that both the Minister and the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) will forgive me if I restrict my comments to the area that is close to my heart.
	It is good to have consensus at times in politics and to be able to discuss issues in a measured way. One of the difficulties with the Thames tunnel is that there will be one hell of an outcry from many Thames Water customers in the years to come when they recognise the sheer cost implied by what is being put into place through this national policy statement for waste water, as it affects not only the London area, but the Thames Water area. Those living in the centre of London will see the tunnel being constructed, as I am sure it will be in the years to come, and will recognise that that does not come entirely cost free. I suspect that Thames Water customers in the Oxfordshires and Gloucestershires of this world will put a lot more pressure on. It is, therefore, all the more important that I use this opportunity to put certain concerns about this policy statement on the record, although I do not wish to break away too far from elements of the happy consensus that we have seen tonight.
	I think we all acknowledge that if the Thames tunnel goes ahead, as I confidently predict it will, it will be a nationally significant infrastructure project. It is therefore sensible to make it one in the formal sense, both in relation to the Planning Act and, as the framework suggests is needed with such projects, with the sort of national policy statement we are debating tonight. I agree with other Members that although this debate has been relatively short, this opportunity to debate such a crucial issue is welcome. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs certainly thought so when it examined this draft national policy statement last year, as we gathered from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) earlier.
	The Committee also signalled some concerns about the way that the document appeared to pre-empt elements of the planning process. The waste water NPS is the key document against which the planning application for the Thames tunnel will be judged. For that reason, the Committee said that it should be “a purely generic document” to prevent the justification for the Thames tunnel project from being removed from scrutiny. It also warned that although reference to specific schemes could be put in an annex to the national policy statement,
	“it should be made clear that it does not constitute information to which decision makers must have regard when considering project applications.”
	I fear that the Government have rejected that element of the advice. Instead, the NPS makes it clear, on page 21, that the tunnel is the “only option” and that what would be left to the Planning Inspectorate would merely be the “specific design and route”. In its response to the Select Committee report, DEFRA said the Government want
	to provide a “degree of certainty” to Thames Water. I do not think there is any doubt that they have been able to achieve that result.
	Let us be quite clear about what the national policy statement means in practice. It means there will be no independent analysis of the very case for a tunnel. The document we are debating removes the case for the tunnel from the planning process. I think the Minister will argue that that is reasonable because the arguments have already been heard in detail—perhaps privately in his office and the offices of his predecessors—that the evidence is overwhelming and that the final NPS makes an unarguable case. If that were true, he would have a point, but the NPS is far from entirely convincing, not least because there are a number of things that one would never learn just from reading the document. In my brief contribution tonight I shall list the ones that seem the most significant, and I join the Select Committee in asking whether there really is no need for an independent assessment.
	First, the tunnel will not collect 39 million tonnes of sewage. Like Thames Water, the NPS mentions 39 million cubic metres of discharge into the Thames each year. It then states that the Thames tunnel is the preferred way to address this issue. The casual reader of the document will assume that the tunnel collects 39 million tonnes of discharge, but that figure will be more than halved without the tunnel being built. The construction of the Lee tunnel and the upgrades to the sewage treatment works will prevent 21 million tonnes from entering the tidal Thames, and improvements to Mogden sewage treatment works will tackle several million more upstream.
	Rather than celebrating the huge strides already being made to clean up the Thames—I am not entirely complacent about that; there should be huge strides and we should always be looking to improve the quality of water in the Thames—the NPS makes only oblique references and never entirely quantifies them in the way that I have tried to do tonight. It is worth repeating that the amount of sewage entering the Thames will fall dramatically without the Thames tunnel project. Only 18 million tonnes of discharge will be addressed by the tunnel, by no means all of which would be stopped as there would still be three large discharge events in an average year.
	Unlike the publicity we have seen from Thames Water the NPS does at least describe the discharges as a mixture of “untreated sewage and rain water”, but it does not explain that the rain water accounts for more than 95% of the total. That somewhat disingenuous use of statistics has understandably misled countless members of the public and even Members of this House. In last week’s debate on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) talked about tackling the
	“39 million tonnes of effluent”—[Official Report, 14 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 306.]
	but the reality is that there are just 18 million tonnes of discharge, of which not even 1 million tonnes are effluent. Any discharge of sewage is regrettable but we should deal in facts.

Anne McIntosh: When the Committee put questions on the national policy statement to the Department, we asked particularly about the potential impact of SUDS
	and other rainfall harvesting. If, as my hon. Friend says, we are talking about mostly rainfall, that impact would be quite substantial.

Mark Field: I accept that there would be an impact, but the use of the word “effluent” in relation to the 39 million cubic metres gives the public and many Members of this House a somewhat misleading impression of the sheer urgency of the need to undertake the project at this time.
	It has been asserted that the river has been getting better and will continue to do so, and there is no doubt about that, but a feature of debates on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill last week and less recently was the number of hon. Members who suggested that the Thames had been getting worse, and will continue to get worse without the tunnel. The hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made that statement in part. That claim is not supported by the facts, as regards the immediate future; it is also probably not entirely true as regards the past and present.
	I note that the Environment Agency’s website no longer hosts a press release that it issued only 17 months ago, but at that time, it went so far as to describe the Thames as
	“the beauty queen of the planet’s waterways.”
	That perhaps goes a little too far, even for those who have no desire whatever for a Thames tunnel-type project, but what prompted the comment was real enough: the sustained and continuing improvement of the Thames, which saw it win the international Theiss river prize for outstanding achievement in river management and restoration.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my contribution last week. Surely there is irrefutable evidence that in the past few years, there have been significant discharges into the Thames, which have damaged the water quality. There is no getting away from that. I welcome all the improvements, including upstream, but the solution has to be a combination of rainwater harvesting, better treatment and, eventually, a Thames tunnel. It will not make the river perfect, but if we do not do all those things, the river quality will continue to deteriorate. That is not what he, I, or anyone in London wants.

Mark Field: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there is the issue of the sheer cost of the proposal, and whether we need to go for what is seen as being the only game in town, and take up the Thames Water proposal that we spend £4.1 billion—already a significant increase on the figure originally presented for this project.
	It is worth saying that population growth and climate change will not reverse the improvements that have already taken place. Given that a 60% reduction in discharges is on the way, it would take something much more significant to reverse the trend. The NPS identifies two potential factors—population growth and climate change—but neither seems of any great magnitude in relation to this issue. New housing developments are already being built with SUDS and mitigation designed in, and retrofitting will slowly improve the existing housing stock. Moreover, the NPS says that more than 1 billion litres per day of sewage need in England can be
	saved through water efficiency, but then bizarrely ignores how that can help offset the projected changes in London’s population.
	Climate change is cited as producing more “extreme rainfall events” like those of August 2004; that may have an impact, as was discussed in the exchange with the hon. Member for Islington North. That discharge of eight years ago caused the death of many thousands of fish, yet on page 18, the NPS admits that the fish deaths were caused by the Mogden sewage treatment works, which of course have nothing to do with the tunnel, and are already being upgraded. Thames Water was quoted last week as claiming that climate change will produce less rainfall and more droughts, and will require more reservoirs to be constructed, which implies less in the way of combined sewage overflow overall.
	Fish kills are already being addressed. Mogden, which is well upstream of the Hammersmith pumping station, is thought to be responsible for both major fish kills mentioned in the policy statement. The other occurred last summer, near Kew. It is reasonable to suppose that the number of fish kills will be significantly lower in future without the Thames tunnel, and before possible alternatives to the tunnel are considered. Thames Water claims that the Lee tunnel will not benefit the higher reaches of the river, but Mogden demonstrates that the whole of the tidal Thames is set to get cleaner.
	The tunnel will not significantly alter the appearance of the river. The natural turbidity of the Thames means that the water will never be clear. In fact, an Economics for the Environment Consultancy review of the tideway project options concluded that
	“little aesthetic change in the water is to be expected”
	from a tunnel. This was endorsed by the Health Protection Agency’s study in 2007, which reported:
	“Shortly after discharge, floating matter disseminates relatively quickly, so the plug of sewage effluent moves unnoticed with the ebb and flood of the tide.”
	No one is suggesting that sewage discharge does not matter, but it is a fact that for most people it passes unobserved. The findings of the study for the Thames tunnel make one particular and unsourced claim in the NPS seem somewhat dubious when it refers to
	“large quantities of offensive solid material being…deposited on the foreshore”,
	whereas the published evidence does not.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith made rather unfair sport of the views of Professor Chris Binnie in the exchange that we had last Wednesday. I shall discuss those views in a moment. Professor Binnie is an expert on water and designed the original Thames tunnel scheme, so his conclusion that only 10% of litter is sewage-derived should be heeded. It follows that if the tunnel can reduce litter deposits by some 10%, 90% of the visible rubbish that swills about the river will remain, whatever happens to the combined sewer overflows. The idea that the appearance of our improving river is causing an international
	“reputational risk to the UK”
	seems a little far-fetched, and I suspect that a 10% reduction along the lines that I have set out would do little to help.
	The health benefits are real, but limited. Again, there must be a balance, given the cost of the project. Recreational users of the Thames would undoubtedly benefit from the tunnel, if not quite as much as is sometimes thought.
	For example, although gastric infection in rowers runs at 13 cases per thousand rowers per year, that is far lower than the rate in the general population, which is 190 cases per thousand. Likewise, the actor David Walliams’s swim is much touted, but he fell ill long before reaching the tidal stretches of the River Thames.
	The Environment Agency has too little regard for the cost. The NPS highlights the curious role that has been given to the Environment Agency, whose sole concern is the environmental impact of the tunnel, with no attempt to weigh that impact against the rising cost. Apparently, the Government
	“considers that the need…will have been demonstrated if the Environment Agency has concluded that the project is necessary for environmental reasons”.
	That is almost a blank cheque for what constitutes environmental necessity. The agency is understandably fond of large-scale projects. Despite the claim to a purely environmental rationale, however, when pressed on the justification for a £4 billion tunnel in a climate of austerity, when discharges will more than halve anyway, both the Environment Agency and Thames Water hide behind legal arguments about the European directive.
	The directive overrides many of the environmental assessments. The NPS admits that
	“the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is the initial driver for the Thames Tunnel.”
	In practice, compliance rather than the environment is both the root cause and the benchmark, as this stifles concerns about value. Terms such as “unacceptable” and “necessary” are used ambiguously in both the NPS and Thames Water’s literature. They appear to make an environmental judgment but, under challenge, a legal interpretation is always offered, with dark mutterings about infraction proceedings.
	No one has asked the EU. The apparent failure of any of the three parties behind this scheme to approach the Commission is staggering, particularly on the part of the Environment Agency and DEFRA. Without reference to the Commission, DEFRA has disregarded the urban waste water treatment directive’s principle of using the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost, and stipulated that only a collection device for combined sewer overflows meets the requirement
	“to limit pollution from sewer overflows”.
	It seems that the Environment Agency applies its zeal to say no discharges are acceptable, irrespective of cost. That is fine if we factor that into our thinking about that body, but the worry is that DEFRA takes that on board and then applies gold-plating by saying that no discharges are permissible under the directive, and Thames Water applies for a project to which the answer can no longer be no. The huge cost is relevant, not just for all of us who are Thames Water users, but for legal reasons. It was the legal position that prompted Professor Binnie’s reassessment of the need for the tunnel that he had initially recommended, given the work that is already under way and the lessons that have been learned from in-river bubbler systems in the seven years since he chaired the Thames tideway strategic study. His examination of the directive has led him to believe that a tunnel is unnecessary.
	What Professor Binnie revealed at the meeting chaired by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), which I think was misreported
	in the exchanges we heard last week, was the detail of his discussions with DEFRA’s lawyers. His view was that the increased cost of the tunnel has made it disproportionate in the sense of the directive, as exemplified by the Whitburn infraction proceedings. However, the senior DEFRA lawyer stuck relentlessly to the Department’s interpretation. I was not at the meeting, but I understand that Professor Binnie said that on legal matters he felt that ultimately he had to defer to those who ought to know. His understandable reluctance to challenge civil servants is not always shared by the rest of us, and nor should it be.
	In my view, the cost-benefit analysis is deeply flawed, and there is no better example of flawed DEFRA analysis than the series of cost-benefit analyses that have accompanied the Thames tunnel project. When the cost was initially touted as £1.7 billion, the benefits were judged to be worth around £1.7 billion. Now that the cost has risen to £4.1 billion, with the Lee tunnel and sewage treatment works upgrades already under way, hey presto, the benefits have been judged to have risen to around £4.1 billion. It is either a near miracle of fortuitous recalculation or, as those of us inclined to be more sceptical might think, a somewhat cynical sleight of hand. I think that Professor Binnie is in no doubt about this non-legal point. Using Treasury green book rules and standard, quality-adjusted life year metrics, he calculated the health benefits of the tunnel to be about £2 billion. The NPS means that no independent examination of DEFRA’s figures will take place.
	There are no net economic benefits. The economic case for the tunnel on the basis of job creation is starting to be talked up, and I understand that a report on that by Thames Water is imminent. The Minister described the estimated 4,200 jobs only last Wednesday as
	“a big win for London”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 330.]
	Unlike other infrastructure projects, however, the tunnel will do relatively little for the economy once it is complete. Even the boring machines are being bought from Germany —as we speak, the same applies to Crossrail. Although the temporary creation of construction jobs will have some benefit, it would be considerably cheaper to pay 4,000 people an MP’s salary for the duration of the project, and considerably better value to build something else, whether in London or not. I am afraid that the lasting economic impact of the tunnel will be the £80 a year reduction in the disposable income of each and every Thames Water customer for decades to come.
	I fear that the poorest will be hardest hit, and this is the debate we will be having in this House in four or five years’ time. We will be talking about those bills, and Thames Water customers will be in the position South West Water customers were in last week when we debated the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill. Sewerage bills are regressive. We have only just debated the pernicious effect of such bills in the south-west, and the rising cost of energy is a cause of great concern across the House. It is not good enough for Thames Water to defend this simply by saying that water bills will rise only towards the average. Together, London and the wider Thames Water sewerage area already have the highest living costs in the country and the pinch will be felt.
	There are alternatives, depending on the question. Bubblers are dismissed by the NPS as they are
	“not considered to be a sustainable or complete solution in the long-term.”
	Of course, the tunnel is not a complete solution, as there would still be discharges—no one disputes that for one minute. The notion of sustainability in the NPS leans heavily on the assumptions about population growth and climate change to which I have already referred. The Cardiff harbour system shows that new options have emerged since the tunnel was first mooted almost a decade ago, including the real-time monitoring of dissolved oxygen levels. I accept that an in-river system is not perfect and would not go as far as the Thames tunnel, but it would cost a fraction of the £4.1 billion price tag now in place. Were it not for the momentum already behind the building of the tunnel and the closed institutional ranks to which I have referred, I think that such a system would be considered, and perhaps it still should be.
	The NPS states, somewhat grandly:
	‘It is inappropriate to “do nothing”’
	about sewage discharges, but we are not “doing nothing”; we are more than halving the problem. The phrase is redolent of the so-called politician’s fallacy: “We must do something; this is something; therefore, let’s get on and do it.” When civil servants insist once again that the gold-plated option is the only way to meet our obligations under a European directive, we are entitled—obliged, in my view—to be sceptical. When the result could allow a single utility company to profit while the rest of us are hit in the pocket, we can contemplate stronger emotions. The project cries out for proper independent scrutiny, yet the NPS prevents, I fear, any assessment through the planning process of the case for the tunnel.
	I have no doubt that there is a problem with sewage discharge in the Thames. More than £1 billion is already being spent to reduce it dramatically, but the Thames tunnel will cost in excess of £4 billion, and the question is whether it represents good value for money.
	I am sure that we in this House will return to this issue, but I fear that we will do so on the back of huge increases in water bills for all our constituents, and we will only wish that we had alerted ourselves to the issues now, rather than doing so, as I suspect we will, in many years to come.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, but I am conscious that it must finish at 10 pm and that the Minister will want a few minutes to respond to the points made, so I will ensure that he has that opportunity.
	I endorse much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) just said. I have taken an interest in this issue throughout my time as a Member of Parliament. The story began many years ago when European Commission directive on urban waste water treatment focused attention on the fact that the Thames was non-compliant. It set a deadline for compliance: 31 December 2000. That deadline was clearly not met. The directive required that sewage—domestic, industrial and rain water run-off—should be collected and conveyed to plants for secondary treatment, and that overflows should be reduced and measures taken to limit the pollution of the tidal Thames and of the River Lee from sewage outflows.
	The other directive to which colleagues have referred is the water framework directive. Compliance with the urban waste water directive is a precondition of compliance with the water framework directive, so there is external pressure on the UK. Just as with air pollution, unless we meet the directives’ requirements, we will be liable for fines resulting from action taken in the European courts. I have never doubted that—to use the shorthand cliché that my hon. Friend just used—something needed to be done, and I have always taken the view that the presumption should be that the tunnel is the best way forward. In the evidence I submitted to Thames Water’s first consultation, I said exactly that, in my answer to the second question:
	“Like the government, I work from the presumption that the tunnel project is the best way forward, but I am aware that there are still arguments that it would be better to seek Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and I would request Thames Water to carry out a final assessment of the alternatives to a tunnel before proceeding with the tunnel option. Constituents of mine are also concerned that alternatives should be considered one last time in case they provide an environmentally preferable option.”
	By that stage, the draft national policy statement had been produced, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for her work and that of her Committee, on which she has reported this evening. I remind the House of what the Committee, in paragraphs 63 to 66 in particular but starting in paragraph 62, wrote. In paragraph 63, the hon. Lady and her Committee make it clear that
	“other witnesses considered the needs case as set out in the draft NPS to be overstated”.
	Those other witnesses included the Greater London authority which, the report reminds us,
	“rejected the Government’s assertion that failure to adopt the NPS would result in failure by the UK Government to meet obligations in the UWWTD”.
	The report states:
	“The GLA argued that not having an NPS did not mean that ‘poor decisions will be made, it just means that decisions will not have a single source of policy advice to follow’.”
	Paragraph 64 begins:
	“Witnesses also had reservations as to the adequacy of the draft NPS’s sections on alternatives to constructing new infrastructure”,
	and London Councils’ evidence is then cited. Paragraph 65 is clear:
	“The brief sections in the NPS on the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel are not sufficient to prove the need for these large-scale projects, in particular the multi-billion pound Thames Tunnel project which will have impacts over a period of years on the lives and livelihoods of people living and working locally. Nor do the sections on the alternative approaches sufficiently address all of the potential options for achieving desired outcomes such as improved water quality.”
	In effect, in March last year, the Select Committee said, “Slow down, be careful, remember that the evidence isn’t all in one direction.”
	In paragraph 66, the Committee recommended that
	“Defra include in any justification of new waste water infrastructure projects full explanation as to how they will help to meet national and European environmental requirements. The Department should also provide more detail on the potential alternative methods of achieving environmental outcomes, such as improved water quality, which new infrastructure is designed to achieve.”
	The Government read that, took heed of that, and revised the structure of their policy statement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, the two specific projects—Deephams and the Thames tunnel—were taken into the annex, while leaving a rewritten section, notably in chapter 2. However, they did not change the presumption that in looking at the policy we are limited in our ability to raise questions about whether the Thames tunnel as it is currently proposed is the right option for London.
	I want not only to make the obvious points that my constituents have made to me, and that my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour has made on behalf of his constituents and others, but to suggest a way forward that tries to square the circle and help us to get off a hook that we might otherwise find ourselves on. As I have said recently in debates on this issue in other contexts, since the first round of consultations, the arguments for a review have grown, first, because the cost has grown. The Minister has been very straightforward with the House, as he should be, in saying that he is sceptical about the cost. I am glad about that. An increase from between £1 billion and £2 billion to over £4 billion is considerable, given that the bills of water rate payers will be added to in order to pay for it.
	Secondly, various other commentators, including Professor Binley, have questioned the cost-benefit analysis mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Whatever one thinks about its progeny, the Thames tunnel commission, on behalf of the boroughs of mixed political hue that commissioned it, made some strong points about looking at the alternative. My concern now is how we manage to reconcile those concerns with the Minister’s desire to make sure that space is given for the project to move forward. I am conscious that there is still a bit more procedural work to do in this place. Following the Localism Act 2011, we have to transfer the responsibility for major sewerage projects so that they are national infrastructure projects—I do not disagree that that should be the case—and then there is the planning process.
	I would like to suggest a possible way forward. It could be argued that the reviews by Ofwat, the Selborne commission, Thames Water and others are inevitably coloured by the views of those who commissioned them—clearly, the Selborne commission must have behind it the interests of the six boroughs. I do not ask the Minister to give a definitive answer on this tonight but merely to reflect on what he has heard from around the Chamber. Before Thames Water draws up its final plans or submits any planning application, there is time in the coming months for a review panel of people who do not have a vested interest to do some urgent work and then report to those with a direct interest—Government, Parliament, the Greater London authority with its new Mayor and Assembly, and London Councils. The second consultation has just ended; I, like others, have given my evidence. We have not heard Thames Water’s response to that. There is an opportunity for a range of people to contribute before the last round of consultation by Thames Water is concluded.
	There are other people who can look in from outside. The United Nations has an environmental programme office that looks at big projects around the world. The European Commission has an Environment Directorate-General. The Environment Agency clearly has a continuing interest. Of course, the Greater London authority has
	an interest. The Local Government Association is neutral politically, as is London Councils. The Consumer Council for Water and political parties might want to have an input. The National Audit Office might wish to have an input, because there is a major financial question about value for money—that is probably the biggest question behind all the concerns.
	I will not seek to divide the House tonight. There is clearly consensus between Opposition and Government Front Benchers that the national policy statement should be approved. That follows the position of Labour Ministers who held the portfolio and it is the position of my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues. However, we should not go automatically from approving the statement to pressing a green button that sends us through a set of procedures whereby we cannot consider any of the factors again.
	To conclude, I will put on the record the questions that I think need to be answered. I will literally list them. First, there are serious questions about what the environmental objectives are that the tunnel will achieve. Clearing up the river is fine as a general statement, but we need a bit more scientific analysis. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked why the argument appears to be about the huge amount of discharge—39 million tonnes—when that is not the correct figure any more, for reasons that we know about, and when most of the discharge is water, not sewage. That question needs to be addressed. Furthermore, of the rubbish that goes into the Thames, 90% is general litter and only 10% is sewage. Thirdly, there is a question whether the most sustainable way of dealing with drainage and sewerage in London is the largest of the tunnel options, which is a concrete tunnel. That would see us literally flushing perfectly good rain water down the drain. Lastly, I share my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour’s view that when the cost of the tunnel has nearly tripled from £1.7 billion to £4.1 billion, it is bizarre that the cost-benefit analysis seems to suggest that there will still be the same relative benefit.
	I hope that the Minister hears our concerns. He has offered always to engage with those of us with a direct interest and whose constituents are greatly concerned. I hope that he will collaborate with those of us who want to ensure that, over the next few months, the questions are answered objectively and are given to Thames Water, the Government and the regulator before any final decisions for planning or public policy purposes are implemented. I accept that we have to cross this threshold tonight, and I will not prevent that. However, we need to know where we are going. Over the next six months, there is a huge amount of work to be done. I think that colleagues from all parts of the House and people outside the House would value that collaboration, and I hope that we can all agree that it should happen.

Richard Benyon: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the points raised in the debate. I apologise if my response is hurried and does not deal with points in the order in which they were raised.
	Important points have been raised in this debate. I concede that this is a serious matter, particularly the Thames tunnel element of it. I share many of the
	concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). I repeat my earlier assurance to them: I do not enter this matter with blind disregard to the impact that it will have on their constituents and mine, including in the construction phase. Many hon. Members who have spoken on previous occasions are rightly concerned about the impact of the project and its construction. I assure hon. Members that I remain willing to be engaged. Let us not pretend that this is the last occasion on which this scheme or other such schemes will be debated in the House. There will be opportunities to raise these issues in the House and I remain willing to be held accountable.
	Essentially, those of us in government are all laymen, unless we are lucky enough to have a specific engineering skill. I do not have banking experience or engineering experience of large projects, so I seek to get it. I am gifted with a good team supporting me in the Department, but I can assure Members that these schemes, particularly the Thames tideway, are rightly matters of concern not just to my Department but right across Government, and to agencies such as the Environment Agency and Ofwat.
	Recommendation 9 in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report was very important. It suggested a serious look at how Ofwat saw the Thames tunnel. The Government’s response, which I will not repeat, set out clearly that Ofwat accepted without reservation the Committee’s recommendation that it must make full use of its regulatory powers
	“to scrutinise the economic case for the Thames Tunnel project and be rigorous in determining which costs should be passed on to Thames Water customers.”
	I know that Ofwat would want me to continue to provide assurances about that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster commented on the risk of infraction of the urban waste water treatment directive. I remind the House that the UK is already in the European Court of Justice with respect to the combined sewer outflows into the Thames, so far from there being a risk of gold-plating, there is a risk that the Court will find that we are doing too little. We await its judgment later this year, but I would be surprised if it came to the conclusion that the Thames tunnel was not required.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned cost-benefit analysis. There was an analysis in December 2011 to support the ministerial statement, and it took account of the increased costs of the project. As I said earlier, I assure him that we are examining the matter rigorously with advice from Ernst and Young and others, and will continue to do so. We will reassure the House of our assessment from time to time. As I said, Ministers will remain sceptical about the cost of the project, and we will drill down to ensure that we deal with it as well as possible.
	The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) spoke in support of what the Government are seeking to do, and he made a number of points. He mentioned the definition of sustainable development. On page 9 of the Government’s framework document, in paragraph 2.2.3, the Government’s key policy objectives are set out, and a definition is given of sustainable development in relation to the national policy statement. We will also
	shortly publish the national planning policy framework, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) mentioned. That, too, will set out the Government’s definition, moving forward from that of the Brundtland commission. The Environmental Audit Committee has done some work on the development of that definition, and I hope that there is general agreement about it throughout the House.
	The hon. Member for Luton South mentioned the green deal, which of course has a blue element—hot water. I entirely share his ambition that the Government should examine the success that I am sure there will be in the green deal and see whether we can retrofit water-saving measures into households. There is a whole range of ways to do that. I refer him to our green infrastructure partnership, which is overseeing the retrofitting of large sustainable drainage systems into developments and which we hope will be a real success. He also made a point about energy recovery, and my noble Friend Lord Taylor is liaising with the Department of Energy and Climate Change on that important matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, mentioned the cost of the Thames tunnel and also talked about the consultation on the national policy statement. It lasted 14 weeks and was considered to be within the scope of the Planning Act 2008, and stakeholders were contacted. I am sure the House will continue to consider better ways of consulting people. When consultations have passed, we always discover that some stakeholders and groups feel that they have not been involved. We must seek to do better, and I know that the House will continue to work on that, including through the Select Committee process.
	My hon. Friend and other hon. Members asked why we are not establishing a red line on costs for the Thames tunnel project. As I have said, we are working across Government, with Ofwat, Infrastructure UK and Thames Water, to ensure that the Thames tunnel represents proper value for money, that the engineering costs of the tunnel are minimised, and that the project is delivered efficiently, with a structure and financing mechanism that delivers value for money for those who will pay for it.
	My hon. Friend also raised the question of SUDS, which was no surprise to me or any other hon. Member—it is an important point. The Government’s intention is to implement the SUDS measures as soon as possible. Implementation dates are being explored in the consultation. Our initial proposal is to commence in October 2012, and during consultation we are seeking feedback on the feasibility of that date for those affected, including developers and local authorities. During the consultation period, officials have been working on a series of additional
	consultation events, including workshops around the country for local authorities on their capacity to deliver the SUDS requirements.
	The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) raises, with his usual vigour, his concerns for his constituents. There is not time to go into them in detail, but I assure him that I will meet him and his constituents to ensure that we address the points he raises. Thames Water recognises that the odour at Deephams is a key issue for local stakeholders and is working with the Environment Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat and local authorities. It can mitigate the problem to a degree. Options include covering and controlling odorous air from primary treatment plants.
	The national policy statement requires all waste water treatment infrastructure projects of national significance examined by the Planning Inspectorate to include an appropriate odour impact assessment as part of the environmental statement. The applicant should assess that potential, so I hope the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be living in a slightly more favourable environment in future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster asked how much pollution is in our river at the moment. We must produce more evidence to satisfy him, but the fact is that there are 50 to 60 overflows from combined sewage overflows every year. That is set to increase. An element of that is being dealt with by the Lee Valley project, but another 18 million tonnes is flowing through our river, in one of the most important cities in the world. Yes, we require caution on cost, but we also require a resolute approach to deal with that.
	Discharge events are increasing, and we know that only 2 mm of rain results in a combined sewage overflow. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that will not change the colour of our river. Londoners and any visitor to this great city will stand on our bridges and see no demonstrable change in the colour of the river, but most people recognise that a bubbler system, which has worked well in Cardiff harbour, which is of course a lagoon rather than a tidal river, will not resolve the problem. Professor Binnie, who has been prayed in aid on all sides of the argument, seems to have come down on the same side that the Government reluctantly came down on, and concluded that the scheme should go ahead. He was right to do so.
	I apologise to hon. Members if I have not been able to answer all their points, but this important debate is ongoing, and I commend the statement to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Waste Water, which was laid before this House on 9 February.

SHIPBUILDING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

John Robertson: My speech tonight might be about shipbuilding, but it is fundamentally about commitment—to a tradition, to an industry and to the people who rely on it. I am glad to have secured this debate and hope to catch the Chancellor’s ear when he makes his future plans. I hope it is not too late, but I doubt it.
	I must begin by mentioning how disappointed I was at last month’s decision to award a £452 million contract for support tankers to the South Korean ship company, Daewoo, at the expense of the UK sector. Not only was this sneaked out in a written statement, but a Westminster journalist reported that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) said, “It’s okay, we’ve got away with it. It’s only on the BBC website”. I hope that the Minister will put the record straight today about these reported comments and about why the decision was made.
	The four military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—tankers, from which military helicopters will be able operate, are due to enter service from 2016. Owing to the timing and nature of the contract, it is especially tough on the UK sector. For example, there will be gaps in order books after the carriers and Type 45 destroyers are finished. Placing orders for those four ships in UK yards was essential to retaining those skills and capabilities in the UK. I remind the Minister that retaining that capability is also a strategic issue, so the Ministry of Defence is risking UK defence capability by placing this order in South Korea, as well as undermining the UK shipbuilding industry.
	There have been suggestions in the past that South Korea has won orders at prices below production cost, and the EU has reported South Korea to the World Trade Organisation for its behaviour.
	Speaking as a local MP, I would say that given that there are at least three years before the steel work on the carriers being built in the shipyards in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)is finished, these contracts mean that there would have been enough time to find work to keep other highly skilled workers busy until the Type 26 frigates came along at these shipyards. Instead, however, as a result of losing out on this contract, the shortfall will lead to the loss of 1,000 jobs. Given that unemployment in my constituency is up 66% since February 2008 and in Glasgow city by 80% since summer 2007, we can see that this is of major concern not only to me but to the people of the city of Glasgow. That will be mirrored in other areas of the country.
	What really annoys me, however, is that these four MARS tankers for the Royal Navy were deemed to be “warlike” ships. As a result, under the previous Government’s procurement rules, they would have been built in the UK. I secured that commitment from the previous Government in 2003 at a meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, when they guaranteed that all “grey ships” or “warlike ships” would be built in the UK.
	My local GMB shipbuilders’ trade union certainly considers these tankers for the Royal Navy to be “warlike”, so like the Type 45 destroyers, the aircraft carriers and the future surface combatant ships, the Type 26 frigates, they should be built in the UK too. The reason is that they could be put into a war zone to refuel warships and to provide support for amphibious and land forces close to the shore. They need to be equipped with proper defences to protect the Royal Navy personnel on board, the helicopters that operate from them and, of course, the ships themselves—let us not forget them and the men in them. For that reason alone they should be built in the UK.
	I fear, however, that the commitment that I secured from the previous Government is being broken and that the current Government are sending out signals that they will continue to break it. In fact, I believe that it is the Government’s policy to break it. This fear is supported by the equipment, support and technology Green Paper published on December 2010. It stated that the Government intended to buy more defence equipment off the shelf. As defence companies in the UK cannot afford the costs or accept the risks of developing major pieces of defence equipment without Government support, the clear implication of the Green Paper is that the Government mean to buy more equipment from foreign suppliers. Moreover, there is no mention of arrangements for licensed production, suggesting that the Ministry of Defence envisages buying more from the company’s own production line—another potential blow for UK manufacturing.
	At the end of August 2011, the Government announced an order of 14 Chinook helicopters from Boeing, at a cost of £1 billion, which was fully in line with the approach I have outlined. At the beginning of October, AgustaWestland announced that it would make 375 staff redundant, owing to a shortage of work. That means that the Government are setting a dangerous precedent, which may have changed the commitment that I received from the previous Government on “grey ships”. With fewer than 10,000 highly skilled workers in the shipbuilding industry, any further loss of commitment to support the yards will result in the total collapse of UK shipbuilding and the loss of a highly skilled and motivated work force. Investment over the last few years has created a fantastic opportunity for UK shipbuilding to be recognised as it was a number of years ago—highly respected for quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Many navies in the world are looking at our Type 45 destroyers with envy. They are without doubt the best ships of their class and type anywhere in the world.
	The Government say that no UK yard made a bid for the MARS ships. However, I am the chair of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group, and a meeting was held last week. I have approached companies that should have bid, but did not do so, for which there were two good reasons. First, they were discouraged from doing so; and secondly, the decision had already been made on cost. Will the Minister comment on that, verify whether those are the facts, and if so, say what he will do to rectify the situation?

Russell Brown: In view of my hon. Friend’s discussions with the all-party group, will he tell the House why those companies appear to have been discouraged?

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the companies do not want to be named, for obvious reasons—their orders might be looked at in future—but the fact of the matter is that they seem to have been pretty well warned off, being told that it would be a waste of time, energy and money for them to tender for the ships. I find that despicable to say the least, and it is also a slight on our great work force, who work in the shipyards in my constituency and many others.
	The previous Labour Government deserve to be congratulated on saving shipbuilding on the Clyde, as the Conservative Government from whom they took over did their best to ensure that those yards closed. The present carrier project, initiated by the last Government, is not only boosting the shipbuilding sector’s profile, but having a knock-on effect in the manufacturing sector as a whole. At a time of high unemployment, we should remember that the industry cannot afford to lose skilled workers, because as we have seen, once gone, they do not return to the industry. The industry needs skilled workers over the next 10 years. The young people entering the industry need to be trained, but it is not easy with people leaving the industry owing to lack of work or retirement. The shipbuilding work force are ageing and need new blood now. With youth unemployment at an all-time high—I might add that it is above the national average in my constituency—what better time than this to employ more young people? I congratulate BAE Systems in my constituency on its apprenticeship policy and on doing a great job to keep apprenticeships going in the last 10 years, but let us face it: the industry on the Clyde can ill afford any redundancies.
	All this raises the question of where the ships should be built. We could, of course, build them abroad, as the Government appear to want to do. After all, it might work out cheaper to do so. However, we are not talking about a simple commercial ship that can be built more cheaply in a low-wage economy; in this case, we are talking about complex, highly integrated systems that happen to be housed in ships. We have the necessary skills here in the UK, and we cannot run the risk of losing crucial shipbuilding skills to other countries, let alone the cost of unemployment. Ultimately, the Government could find that they have nowhere at home to turn to for their systems requirements, if they continue to act as they currently are: penny wise but pound foolish.
	The Minister will be aware of a recent report by the Royal United Services Institute which looked into defence procurement. The report found that the tax revenue implications of a given choice are frequently overlooked. Given that the Government, including the Ministry of Defence, are committed to reducing the budget deficit—a function of spending and revenue—this issue is highly pertinent. Using an actual contract and an explicit accounting method, the RUSI report found that the tax revenues are significant; they can yield to the Exchequer over a third of the value of the contract.
	The same study found that the Government could get back more than 28% in income tax and national insurance payments alone by buying British in defence procurement. That figure is of obvious procurement policy significance at a time when there is such concern over the Government’s budget deficit, and this is something that the Chancellor should consider this week. The thousands of people in the shipbuilding industry could not care less about the
	50p tax rate; they just want a job that allows them to be able to pay tax. The report also suggested that if the UK were to spend a third of its defence budget on off-the-shelf foreign systems, as outlined in the Green Paper on equipment, support and technology, the Treasury would lose about £1 billion in revenue. That could have a negative effect on Government revenues and thus on the public sector deficit. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered the RUSI report?
	There is also a human aspect to all this that we miss in the faceless statistics and figures that are quoted. How can families in my constituency, and constituencies like it, plan for their own future when they could see their jobs go? How can we expect them to cope with such insecurity, especially when they are working in an industry of national importance? We are talking about generations of families who have worked in the industry, and about the traditions that go along with that. If the Government cut first and think later, it is those people and many others like them who will ultimately pick up the tab. So I call on the Minister and the Government to honour the commitment of the previous Government to the proud people in the shipbuilding industry of this country, and to ensure that all “grey ships” continue to be made in Britain.

Mark Prisk: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing the debate, and on his heartfelt remarks. He knows the shipbuilding industry in its entirety well. I am sure that he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with all his conclusions, but I nevertheless respect the fact that he takes a considerable interest in the industry.
	I should like to set out the UK’s current market position on defence and, indeed, on the broader issue of marine engineering, because that is crucial to underpinning many of the engineering businesses to which he referred. I shall respond to his specific concerns on defence, and explain the Government’s strategy for helping marine engineering in the round to grow over the next few years.
	I want to put this in context. The foundation of UK marine manufacturing and shipbuilding derives from our historical position in relation to merchant shipping and to the defence of our nation. Today, the equipment that we develop in this country is still highly favoured by ship and boat owners around the world. The marine industries manufacture and provide important support services in not only the naval market but the leisure, commercial and offshore renewable markets, and generate some £10 billion for the UK. Furthermore, the UK is still the fourth largest shipbuilder in Europe in terms of gross value added. However, the global market is not static, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Today, our expertise and facilities are being adapted for new clients and new markets. Of course, that also means that they face new challenges from new competitors who were not there 10 or 15 years ago.
	Our worldwide reputation for naval ships, marine equipment and systems, marine science, ports and infrastructure, ship repair and recycling is now migrating into a broader sphere, which includes offshore renewables manufacture, super-yachts and high-value sailing yachts.
	Let us take, for example, South Boats, which designs and builds aluminium catamarans on the Isle of Wight. It sells to a market for the operators of offshore wind farms in the whole field of support and crew transfer vessels. Four years ago—in 2008—its turnover was in the region of £8 million, but it exported merely 5% of its output. By 2011, the turnover had increased to £23 million, with 21% exports. That is an example of positive signs in shipbuilding and ship repair, but it is not the only one.
	Let us take the revival of the Cammell Laird Birkenhead shipyard. The firm that went into administration in 2001 was bought back by former employees and now once again, I am pleased to say, is a thriving shipbuilding and ship repair business. It specialises in commercial repair and upgrading heavy fabrication engineering, but also operates in military refit markets. It is located, as we know, in an area where there is a major cluster of marine service expertise. It is currently responsible for the maintenance of vessels from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which recently saw service in Libya, and is working on a number of commercial conversion projects.
	What is encouraging about this—it is something to which the hon. Gentleman specifically referred—is the important commitment to training. The current chief executive at Cammell Laird, John Syvret, started as an apprentice shipwright. Today the company employs 70 apprentices alongside a core work force that averages almost 700 direct staff. These are good signs for the prospects, and, indeed, the ambition of shipbuilding in the UK, but we recognise that this company, among others, has to compete in a tough and challenging global market.
	We have, of course, seen this country and others facing a substantial financial crisis in past years, and many of the markets that shipbuilders sell into have either just come out of recession or, in some cases, are still in it. That is why when we started as a Government we wanted to put manufacturing back at the heart of our economic strategy. It is why we believe our job is to make sure that we maximise industries’ competitive advantages. That is why we are ensuring that we have one of the most competitive tax regimes—not just in the G7 but in the G20. It is crucial to get that long-term investment that is important to industry generally and to shipbuilding specifically. This also explains why we are investing in skills, as with the substantial expansion of apprenticeships. It is why we are investing in key infrastructure, with our £200 billion package of civil engineering projects incorporated into our national infrastructure plan.

John Robertson: The Minister, with his limited time, is generous in giving way. Does he agree that the reason why we have these apprentices and why we are investing in skills is that we have lost those skills over the decades, so it is more by necessity than design that this is happening?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we have seen a wind down so that over the next 10 to 15 years there will be a substantial loss through retirement of a whole generation of engineers. We do not see this is a necessity, however, but as an important
	part of shifting the balance of the economy. We want to see a strengthening in apprenticeships, so I would go further than the hon. Gentleman suggested. We believe that supporting supply chains and technological innovation is the way in which shipbuilding in the UK and elsewhere can keep ahead, so we need to make those investments.
	Let me deal specifically with defence, on which the hon. Gentleman focused—not surprisingly in view of his constituency. It is, of course, a significant market for the UK’s shipbuilding sector. Supporting this, the Royal Navy is in the middle of a major building programme of both warships and submarines. Looking at the broader industrial issue here, partnering and industrial collaboration are key elements of the programme.
	The warship programme is a significant investment, including six Type 45 destroyers, five Astute class submarines and two Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and they are all being delivered by UK shipyards. Subject to Ministry of Defence approval, new contracts are anticipated for two further Astute class submarines, the future strategic deterrent submarine and a new generation of frigate—the Type 26 global combat ship. The Type 26 frigates will form the backbone of the Royal Navy until the middle of this century and, I suspect, beyond. It is clearly too soon to speculate on precisely where the ships will be built, but I will say that the programme provides a real opportunity for strong ties to be formed between the United Kingdom Government, the Royal Navy and British industry as it progresses.
	The work on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, which it is important to consider in this context, has brought about a reinvigoration of the apprenticeships programme on the Clyde. Some 270 apprentices will be employed by BAE Systems, and 154 by Babcock in Rosyth.

Thomas Docherty: As the Minister will know, refitting the two carriers in Rosyth would give my constituency 50 years of work. In the light of the sensitive nature of carrier work, will he confirm that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, my constituency would not be able to compete with English yards on a level playing field?

Mark Prisk: All the Royal Navy’s current warships are built in the United Kingdom. Scotland has a strong and skilled defence sector, and it would make strong bids, but if Scotland were not part of the United Kingdom, the sector would clearly be pitching for business in what is a very competitive international market. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House understand that.
	Let me say something about the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West about BAE Systems’ shipyard work. Like the future implications for the yards, those issues are a matter for the company. The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it expects the BAE Systems maritime naval ships terms of business agreement to provide a strong foundation for it to compete for non-MOD work, both here and abroad, but it is for the company to retain the capacity that it deems necessary to meet the demands made of it, and to transform the sector as it feels appropriate.
	What the Government will do is ensure that the United Kingdom provides an economic and business environment within which businesses, shipbuilding or
	otherwise, can flourish. The defence White Paper, which was published on 1 February, explains how we will promote exports related to defence and security—for example, by ensuring, when we work with industry, that export potential is considered at an earlier stage. All too often in the past Governments have not done that properly, regardless of their political persuasions.
	Let me say something about the MARS programme. In the context of the fleet tankers, the hon. Gentleman referred to speculation in reports about remarks attributed to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff). I can confirm that those remarks were wrongly attributed, and that my hon. Friend did not make them.
	I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the fact that no UK contractor bid for the final contract, but the Government cannot force contractors to bid. We are not in that position, nor should we be.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned previous commitments involving warlike vessels, but these are not warlike vessels. The commitment to which he alluded—that complex Royal Navy warships will continue to be built in UK shipyards—remains. I hope that that gives him some comfort.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mark Prisk: I must tell the hon. Gentleman, with respect, that the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West. I do not know whether he asked permission to intervene, but it appears that he did not, so I will now turn to the broader strategy.
	If we are to achieve sustained improvements for the sector as a whole, we shall need a joint industry and Government strategy, whether it is in defence or on the civilian side. That is why, last year, we created the Marine Industries Leadership Council as a forum for the industry. We have launched the first ever strategy for the growth of the marine industries, which seeks to draw on the strengths of the whole sector. Having been a member of the Government for two years, I was surprised to learn that this was the first ever integrated UK strategy for the growth of the marine industries. Our goal is that by 2020, the UK marine industries will be renowned for the quality and value for money that they provide in their products, services and systems. A specific part of the goal is that we ensure that by 2020 the marine industries and maritime services sector sees the value of its contribution to our economy rise to £25 billion, up from £17 billion. That is a clear and important tangible goal, and I hope it will give some comfort to the excellent work force in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West.

John Robertson: Does the Minister not accept, however, that the rules we in this country play by are not the same as those that other countries play by when bidding for orders to build our ships? There is not a level playing field. We allow companies from other countries to make bids when we know—particularly in respect of South Korea in the past—that money that has been given for development has been ploughed into the shipbuilding industry, to enable other countries’ companies to make ships cheaply.

Mark Prisk: I understand that point. The point has been made that the complexity of warships can make it quite difficult for other countries’ companies to make successful pitches. There might also, however, be a point to be made about the cheap end of the market—if we can use that expression in this context. We might look back at past procurement practices, for instance—and there has been a similar debate about trains in this context. The UK must ensure that, while working within the law, we enable UK businesses to compete, which is exactly what we are trying to do.
	In the strategy for the marine industry, we have set out specific goals, including making sure we maximise export opportunities to places such as Brazil, Russia and India, expanding the domestic offshore renewable energy industry—that has a very good tie-in to the sector —and building on partnerships with the universities, because we should not forget that cutting-edge research and development is just as important as the excellent fabrication and construction work within the yards. We also want to improve co-operation within the marine industries sector.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mark Prisk: I will make progress, if I may.
	The Technology Strategy Board is helping to co-ordinate a future technology road map, and UK Trade and Investment has now, as I understand it, made marine a priority sector in our trade and inward investment programmes, which I find extraordinary. It is putting marine right where it needs to be, shipbuilding included.
	Next month, my Department will be hosting an exhibition at Victoria street for the UK marine industries, where we can at last showcase some of the brightest and best products and services in the industry. I extend an invitation to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West and all other Members of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but may I gently say to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman sought to intervene on a number of occasions. He was perfectly entitled to seek to intervene, just as the Minister was entitled to decline to take the interventions. The use of electronic devices in the Chamber is supposed to be undertaken without impairing decorum. To seek to intervene one minute, and then very ostentatiously and blatantly—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. To seek to intervene one minute, and then very ostentatiously and blatantly to be fiddling with such a device is a discourtesy, and I simply ask the hon. Gentleman not to do it. There is nothing more to say on the subject.

Mark Prisk: I cannot promise the hon. Member for Glasgow North West that we will return to large-scale shipbuilding on the Clyde. I do not think he expected me to say otherwise. He and I both know that we now
	live in a different era, but a resurgent industrial sector, including shipbuilding, lies at the heart of our plans to try to rebalance the economy and ensure that we have a more resilient model for long-term growth, and to show respect for the quality of the work done both now and in the past by the men and women who work in the shipyards. Despite what some people think, this country remains one of the world’s leading manufacturing nations and, as far as I am concerned, marine engineering remains a vital element of that.
	We are a maritime nation, and I believe that, with a clear strategy, with investment in technology and with our commitment to skills, we can ensure that the future for this industry can once again be positive.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.